Stuart says Rudd’s rise and fall can be explained with reference to three factors.

First, Rudd assiduously established a media presence that made him very recognisable and he started to register in the polls.

Secondly, he cultivated the factional leaders.

Thirdly, there was Gillard. Rudd recognized her ambition, the support she had from the faction leaders, her warmth and friendship with many in the caucus.

Rudd approached her and pointed out that being from the Left she would never command sufficient numbers in her own right to gain the leadership. But together as a leadership team with her as deputy they could win. Although she commanded more numbers in the Caucus than he did, she recognised the truth of what he said and agreed to join him.

After the election in 2007, Rudd did not maintain his support from the faction leaders, or anyone much in Caucus.

For Gillard, OTOH, the deputy leadership gave her a high profile so that she registered in the polls and maintained her contacts in the Caucus to the extent that when the faction leaders turned to her, she had the numbers.

Stuart says she remained the loyal deputy to the last.

Stuart then goes into a summary of the problems of process in Rudd’s administration, how he was losing traction with the electorate and didn’t seem to be able to do anything about it, which you’ve heard more than enough about before. I don’t want to rehash the extent to which Stuart may be right or not about this.

Gillard’s support cracked when the Hartcher article appeared in the SMH about Jordan canvassing support for Rudd. Stuart says:

It was obvious that Rudd no longer trusted her, yet he was demanding her unconditional support for his project – even as it began to fall apart. The government was headed for oblivion. Gillard had been loyal in the past, while Rudd had reciprocated with dishonesty and mistrust. The deputy decided her time had come.

It’s not particularly relevant, I think, as to whether those who thought the government was going over a cliff were right or not. What matters to Gillard’s motivation is what she believed. And that we really don’t know, but it is a fair bet, I think, that she really thought they were going down.

We are entitled to say that she should have been able to deconstruct polls better and also appreciate the potential harm done to democratic process, but she committed no crimes, broke no rules, so the proof will be in what happens in the future.

I have worked in a large organisation with many divisions and branches. I’ve seen the loyal deputy scenario play out where the loyal deputy finally gives up on a boss that he/she sees as ineffective or worse.

At this stage I’ll say three things. First, that I make no judgement on whether Gillard should have acted. I’ve said that I’m inclined to think that she should have waited until after the election and I’ll stick with that. But then she would have had a case only if Rudd had won, but barely scraped through.

Secondly, I’m more hopeful than many on this blog that she will make cabinet government work, if she wins, and there can be no certainty about that.

Thirdly, I think it is incredibly important if Labor wins that she chooses her ministry on merit, ignoring the factional leaders who got her there if their talents are only in scheming, plotting and playing power games. If she does that she will have struck a blow for all of us and for the Labor Party as well.

Timor L’Este notwithstanhding.

And his stance on refugees from Vietnam in 1975 and his description of them, an epithet I will not repeat. I doubt anyone will be so indulgent of Gillard’s flaws.

What I’m seeing here, and I’m not alone, is a particularly virulent response to Gillard, which isn’t to been seen when it comes to Rudd’s many policy failures. To write that Gillard made Rudd abandon an ETS is an interpretation of recent history that fits with this. It’s not Rudd’s fault. It’s Gillard’s fault. I’d suggest it’s the fault of senior figures with in Labor, including Rudd, Gillard and Swan who totally ballsed this up. It seems that Tanner was the only good guy in the room on this occasion and he’s quitting.

- ruled out gay marriage (no improvement)
- proposed a harsher asylum seeker policy than Rudd
- proposed a significantly weaker climate change policy than Rudd
- started playing games again with FOI requests (internet filter)

So its not surprising that I and others are coming to the conclusion that Gillard is worse than Rudd.

I had thought for the last couple of years that lack of will by Rudd was the reason behind his asylum seeker and climate change policies (among others). Its pretty clear now that what did get done was in spite of the broader ALP parliamentarians not because of them.

Re: preferencing the libs first – I’ll probably be doing it anyway because of the internet filter – Abbott *might* introduce one, but Gillard *will* introduce one and if Abbott supports it in opposition we’ll get one anyway as the Greens won’t be able to block it. But I think its quite a reasonable thing to do in safe ALP seats that won’t risk an ALP government. And I’ll preference the libs in the belief that we’re going to get an ALP government anyway. If the libs somehow do manage to get elected, they’ll face an ALP/Greens controlled senate which should keep them vaguely sensible.

Anyway, it looks like Labor will lose a few seats in cowboy states and win a few in south east. If they lose a lot in the cowboy states then 54-46 overall means they will win seats elsewhere that perviously were unthinkable.

I also think that long term governments are becoming increasingly unlikely for a whole range of reasons – and this election is demonstrating some of them in spades.

If Labor is re-elected (and I think it’s still an if), I would be very surprised to see another win in 2013, particularly since nothing is really being put to the people which will ensure they have some popular backing behind anything they might want to do which goes beyond the risible ‘fixes’ and symbolic giveaways that are now on offer. If, indeed, the ALP does still want to do anything other than retain office at all costs (cf. Queensland and NSW, and, arguably SA)

So not a first term government … though one with the courage of its convictions and that despite being out of power for 23 rather than 12 years and having been utterly robbed in 1954, 1961 and 1969.

Credit where it was due. Whitlam was not Cairns, but he was nevertheless a man with enduring commitment to policy. He still remains my favourite ALP leader, Timor L’Este notwithstanhding.

“Keep the coal in the ground”

A price on carbon in Australia will make no difference to our coal exports, and it doesn’t matter where the coal is burnt, the carbon ends up in the same atmosphere.

I read Hartcher’s piece on the development of Gillard’s climate “policy” this morning. I am now even more unimpressed with Ms Gillard than I was before.

What an awful choice we have. Plain bad or unspeakably dreadful. The Greens may not be perfect, but at least they have some half-decent policies.

Apart from seeing the Greens gain the balance of power, this is probably the least important election in a generation.

1. PM number 1 was roundly condemned for deferring – read abandoning – effective action on climate change;
2. PM 1 was replaced by PM 2 on the grounds that the government had ‘lost its way’ and was ‘directionless’;
3. PM 2 has released several deeply flawed and ill-thought out positions, the most recent a ridiculous proposal to reopen the whole argument about climate change as if the last five years had never happened, and defer – read abandon – any effective action;
4. PM 2 is consequently being flayed for incompetence and hypocrisy.

Please note that these points are valid regardless of the gender of PMs 1 and 2.

the Gillard hate fest

This has been discussed before on Kim’s thread about gender at the main site, but I think it’s important to observe that there are very legitimate criticisms of Gillard and her policy position to be made, which are not part of a “hate fest”.

I do thoroughly agree with you that it’s wrong to preference the Liberals over Labor, though I also would like to endorse Lefty E’s position that optional preferential would be the best way of ensuring that the ALP doesn’t take progressive voters for granted.

I am sure that in Queensland at the next election a very large number of former Labor supporters will be voting only for The Greens. And recall that in Queensland we have a Labor government which has an absolutely shameful record on access to termination of pregnancy, the abolition of separate agencies for women and Indigenous people, privatisation, etc, etc.

It’s getting harder and harder to make the ‘lesser of two evils’ argument stick at state level.

I do agree with Hal9000, though, about the likelihood of a very adverse economic impact from the Coalition’s fetish for budget cuts. And I agree that Abbott’s approach to many issues, including ones of choice, is loathsome.

@Fine

For pity’s sake, give it a rest. I don’t accept that Gillard had any hold over Rudd — they are both as responsible for this mess, but your proposition that attacks on Gillard are founded in some sort of mainfest or incipient misogyny sounds utterly implausible.