On the other hand, Julia Gillard is popular, and a force of nature, and once Lemmings define a task they don’t let go. Several journos (mainly in Melbourne) are waiting for Senator Carr’s green light to unleash Gillard-time.

But the last time Lemmings devoured a leader for Julia up they ended up settling for someone else  – Kevin. Will that happen again? Swanny has been putting his name up, but (once again) don’t forget Stephen Smith, says I!

Previous Kevinism.

What is Malcolm thinking?

Does anyone know why he changed his mind? Any explanation must involve a Turnbull prime ministership, but partyroom is so poisonous it’s difficult to conjure any scenario.  

The “John Howard did it!” schtick doesn’t work; it’s like saying “I heard about someone winning the lotto once, so if you buy a ticket there’s a good chance you’ll win”. Howard was very lucky things worked out as they did.

Often life’s self-actualised, massive achievers  have an unrealistically high estimate of their ability to influence events. If Malcolm thinks he can topple Abbott after the election and then hold the opposition leadership for three years, that’s bizarre.

Perhaps he sees being treasurer under an Abbott prime ministership as a stepping stone. Out of the way, Joe.

And another thing … Eden-Monaro

The Liberals have preselected someone called David Gazard as candidate in Eden-Monaro, and lots of commentators reckon sitting member Mike Kelly has a fight on his hands with such a high quality opponent!

Kelly may have a fight on his hands, but Gazard will have little to do with it, because if any seat moves irrespective of candidate quality (and most of them largely do), it’s that one. As everyone says, it has hitherto been bellwether.

As you know, I reckon there’s a decent swing on to the Coalition on in NSW. But at a guess, Eden-Monaro won’t really be part of it.

New category: anticipations

Have created a new category, “anticipations” (”predictions” is too strong a word) to return to after the election. This post contains two.

Nicholson in the Oz

Picture worth a thousand words

When Newspoll’s 2pp dips to 52 to 48, journos flick the switch to ”what Kevin’s doing wrong”. If it moves back next fortnight (and it probably will), pressure will be back on Tony Abbott.

In the meantime, allow me to pile on.

No-one could fail to be impressed by the mile recently sprinted by Mr Rudd from his proud “big Australia” position. It was set upon with little fuss and achieved in record time. Someone presumably showed him some research on voters’ attitudes to immigration; mind you given Australians’ visceral approach to the topic the original statement was quite courageous.

On climate change the government has spent two years deflecting.

But Rudd’s predecessor as PM was, despite the crazy “conviction politician!” tag, also timid, repeatedly hanging ministers out to dry when suddenly backflipping on policies. But Howard at least gave a good impression of being tough.

On the other hand, Rudd is more assured than Howard was in his first term 1996-8, and maybe we have to wait for a re-election to meet Confident Kevin.

That cliche of the leader being “a scrapper” and “a fighter”, “best when his/her back is against the wall” is nearly always applied to incumbents, but it always comes after at least one re-election.

So perhaps we should give the lad some time.

Meanwhile, here’s a memo to Mr Rudd: “tough” budgets usually go down well with voters; they are great for the definition of what the government is “about” and why they’re preferable to the alternative.

Future of Kevinism parts I and II.

(Part I here.)

In August last year I reckoned in the Canberra Times  that “[o]ne thing is for sure: over the coming years, the world will change, and it will do things to Australia that we cannot begin to imagine. How the Rudd Government responds, and how many elections it wins, will determine the eventual narrative.” (Bottom here).

It only took a month for the unimagined to arrive: the GFC, which will certainly loom in subsequent “narratives” about the Rudd government.

Rudd’s opinion poll ratings have of course been very high by historical standards. This flows on to all sorts of things, like media coverage (witness the change after one Newspoll last week) and his party’s tolerance of his control-freakish behaviour.

I reckon that it’s not really all, or even mostly, due to him, and that if a reasonably bland and disciplined someone else like, say, Stephen Smith had become Labor leader in late 2006 much of the same would have happened and be happening now in the polls. (Kiwis are giving their dorkish first term PM a similar reception.)

But in the longer term, what really matters is how the government does at the next election.

If for some reason Rudd loses in 2010, all those sky-high polls will, naturally, count for zilch. Less than zilch probably: the schmuck was so obsessed with the daily burnishing of his standing in the electorate (the story will go) that he failed to invest political capital in the future. 

We will have a textbook account of what not to do: do not fill your office with unhardened youngsters, do give ministers their heads, do show a bit of personality, you have to make an unpopular decision once in a while …

If, like the first Howard (and a lesser extent the first Hawke) government, the ALP survives but not by much and/or gets a scare, Rudd’s bubble will, if not burst, then deflate.

Parties are not very loyal these days, and in this case you can imagine there would be no loyalty at all: off with the annoying twerp’s head!

If the government wins comfortably or even increases its majority, legend status will resume – at least until the first utility bills after the introduction of the CPRS.

There are several ways to view Kevin Rudd’s political brand. One is that he is a gutless wonder, incapable of taking an unpopular decision, obsessed with this week’s approval ratings. Kind of like John Howard between GST and Workchoices. Another is that he is that rare politician: one determined to keep his election promises. And yet another is that the economic times require lots of ‘easy’ choices at the moment.

The GST did wonders for the way voters saw Howard. They hated it at first, and it nearly cost him government, but years later it was seen as good for the country – and good on him for doing what was right. It was emblematic of his being a ‘conviction politician’, and he dined off it right to the end (and to this day).

But incumbents usually come to be perceived as ‘conviction politicians’ – tough bastards who take unpopular decisions in the nation’s interests (or their view of it) . Certainly this applied (at the time of their prime ministerships) to Paul Keating, Bob Hawke and Malcolm Fraser.

And Keating’s and Howard’s final re-election attempts both revolved around ‘whether you like and/or agree with me, you always know where I stand, the other fellow is only pretending etc etc’.

It doesn’t look like Rudd is going to attract that brand of persona. So how will people see him in several years time when the gloss has gone?

People don’t really expect election promises to be kept nor their every position agreed with. These aren’t their expectations of authority.

Kevin might just become disposable.