Michael Gordon Political editor, The Age
March 21, 2013
As coups d'état go, they don't come much more problematic, risky or challenging than this one. Aside from the absence of a declared candidate, or a vacancy, is the question of whether the numbers are there for a switch back to Kevin Rudd.
For all the feverish speculation, they don't appear to be. Not yet, at least. To win a ballot, Rudd needs a majority of votes in the 102-member caucus. Last February, he could only muster just 31 votes to Julia Gillard's 71.
Then there is the mechanism. Who will be prepared to bring it on? Who, assuming Gillard does not call a special caucus meeting to decide her future, will gather the requisite 35 signatures to call such a meeting?
Julia Gillard in Parliament yesterday. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
If these bases are covered, the real layers of difficulty come into play: avoiding wholesale resignations by cabinet ministers who say they can't (or won't) work with Rudd and retribution against those who trashed his reputation during last year's botched challenge.
Then there is the question of ensuring that the crossbenchers, those who entered agreements that enabled Gillard to form minority government after the dead-heat 2010 election, continue to support the government.
Finally, assuming all these hurdles are cleared, comes the really hard bit: explaining what will actually change - and what a revived Rudd prime ministership will mean. Saying the show lost its way under Gillard won't wash.
And there's another dimension - the new incumbent won't only have to explain why Gillard had to go. If she goes, the next two most senior figures in the government - Treasurer Wayne Swan and Senate leader Stephen Conroy - will surely go, too.
Dumping the man who can claim most credit for Australia escaping the global economic crisis won't exactly boost Labor's pitch around superior economic management during the election campaign.
To conceive a strategy that deals with all of the above is one thing; executing it will require more skill, dexterity and deftness than Labor has shown in recent times.
The key ingredient, if it is to happen, would be the willingness of someone who has been loyal to Gillard to make the case for change.
Simon Crean articulated some of Gillard's biggest problems this week - citing the need for ''proper process'' and the imperative to ''stay true'' to Labor values. He is also an elder statesman with a track record of putting the party's interests first. But he is also the man who reaffirmed his ''full support'' for Gillard this week, and he would have a clear understanding of what Rudd was planning to do - and the things he definitely would not do. Could he be the deputy to keep Rudd honest?
Whether the public declarations of Rudd supporter Joel Fitzgibbon - like "how do you reckon the Labor Party would go if it went to the election and received 31 per cent of the primary vote"? - will be the catalyst for change is far, far more doubtful.
So why, then, is there still a distinct prospect that Gillard will be toppled by week's end? The answer is straightforward enough: the deeply entrenched pessimism within the parliamentary party - and the conclusion of many that she is incapable of engineering a recovery in the polls.
Politics, in the end, is a numbers game and - as the Prime Minister told this correspondent this week - a brutal one. Gillard's critics argue that she will not be able to lift the primary vote from the 31 per cent in this week's Age/Nielsen Poll.
But politics isn't just about numbers. Ultimately, it's about choices. The choice facing Labor MPs is whether they terminate another leader and deal with all of the issues raised above, or stick with what they have - and take their collective medicine on September 14.
