Watching Kevin Rudd in his almost daily struggle to avoid giving a straight answer to questions about whether he’ll challenge Julia Gillard is as painful as listening to a smoker justify why they won’t give up.
Both know what they need to do, and why, but somehow can’t act.
Even when directly asked his intentions in that strange late-night interview for Sky News on Saturday, Rudd would not answer directly. His failure to do so fuelled the firestorm that speculation over Labor’s leadership has become.
Yet his comments in that interview have been interpreted as a clear signal he will challenge. He may not now have a choice if the Prime Minister calls a spill while Rudd is overseas thus curtailing the undeclared campaign.
Whatever Rudd may say, being a “happy little Vegemite” as Australia’s top diplomat and working in the Cabinet team is obviously not what he wants. Getting the top job again is. That awkward smile with which he dismisses questions about his intentions confirms it.
Maybe Rudd is just using that ancient politician’s spin technique of keeping his options open. But he hasn’t even given an “if the position becomes vacant, then of course I’ll stand” answer. Maybe he is going to challenge and is thus being mischievous in the hope that the instability his attitude creates will terminate Gillard’s leadership.
Or, perhaps more importantly, he simply cannot bring himself to say “No”.
There is a sense of cognitive dissonance here. Rudd perseveres with giving non-answers to questions about his intentions all the while knowing he is fuelling the speculation, and the resulting political instability.
The analogy with smokers is apposite. Australian research has shown smokers among a cohort of university students are aware of anti-smoking messages and know the habit is bad for their health, but just cannot give up because they enjoy it. Can the Foreign Minister simply not give a straight answer because he is enjoying the game, knowing all the time he should blow full-time for the health of the Government and his own credibility? That he avoids a straight, honest answer with that smile seems to suggest he does enjoy what he is doing.
The question then becomes what he hopes to gain from his non-answers.
If political commentators are to be believed, there is little chance the caucus will turn to Rudd even when the PM’s leadership becomes terminal. Simon Crean said so openly; others say it on background. Rudd must know it, even though the realpolitik of leadership coups is that you must keep eroding an opponent’s support.
In a recent conversation, an academic colleague proposed that Rudd does know, and probably accepts, that he’ll never be leader again, but is nevertheless trying to extract a “reward” for being dumped in 2010. Perhaps the reward is the end of Gillard, maybe he doesn’t know what he wants, just that he wants something. Perhaps it is an ego thing.
Whatever he wants, Rudd at last seems to have the communication strategy he lacked as Prime Minister.
Then, he was content with the tactical domination of the 24-hour news cycle and ignored the need to explain his government’s policy decisions in a consistent long-term manner. The leaked section of the review of the ALP’s disaster at the 2010 election has hinted at the reason for this: complacency.
The Rudd Government acted as though everyone was aware of, understood and supported its policy decisions just because they’d been announced. The lack of a strategic approach to communication in which policy and decisions were amplified and explained led to Abbott’s domination of the media and in the end to the Prime Minister’s downfall.
Had there been a properly thought-out communication strategy the polls that brought him down may not have turned against him; there would have been a better chance that people would have understood. Rudd’s community cabinet program was an example of how the government should communicate, but they didn’t deliver the sense of instant media gratification so craved by politicians and their media advisers.
For her part, Gillard seems to have recognised the problem. In July 2011 she told the National Press Club she had “tended to allow decisions to speak for themselves.”
Now Rudd has reverse-engineered a communication strategy. That is, to deliberately not communicate in pursuit of destabilising Gillard to the point where she can no longer continue as Prime Minister without being challenged. That takes time, so he’s in for the long term, not even tempted by the daily opportunity he’s given to have people listen.
Success in opinion poll ratings seems to have Rudd following Machiavelli’s advice to Lorenzo de Medici. When a prince has the people’s goodwill he needn’t worry about conspiracies; only when people are hostile should a prince go in fear of everything and everyone.
Kevin wins while people are hostile to Julia. And perhaps that’s the reward after all. No need for a straight answer.
Join the conversation
Comments (8)
wilma western
(logged in via email @bigpond.com)
well now we know that the messiah complex is a closer assessment of what Rudd was up to. However the media in general have been relentless in criticising Gillard and speculating about a Rudd challenge. He apparently planned it for after the Queensland election but events overtook this - triggered by his US announcement that he would resign as Minister.
Yuri Pannikin
Director (logged in via email @gmail.com)
James wrote: " . . . the polls that brought him down . . ."
From memory, about that time Labor were running about 35-37% on first preference, hardly a disaster and well within reach of the Liberals with Green preferences.
The polls didn't bring him down, a right-wing putsch in league with big mining interests did; something that should forever shame the name and history of the ALP.
Yuri Pannikin
Director (logged in via email @gmail.com)
And I must say, it's a sad time for the "true believers" in the ALP, people like Combet, Faulkner, and Doug Cameron.
Nic Stuart
(logged in via email @hotmail.com)
You suggest that, "in a recent conversation, an academic colleague proposed that Rudd does know, and probably accepts, that he’ll never be leader again, but is nevertheless trying to extract a “reward” for being dumped in 2010."
I'm afraid your colleague should get out and about more.
Perhaps some personal knowledge of the person that Rudd is may assist his analysis. That's the difference between academia and journalism, I guess (and that's not intended to be some sort of 'smart-arse' comment, although I'm afraid it comes across that way).
Glen Fuller
(logged in via Twitter)
Nic,
I am the 'academic colleague' Jim mentions. How would personal knowledge of 'Kevin Rudd' assist? I am not sure what your point is.
It is clear that this leadership nonsense is damaging ALP prospects. Rudd is surely experienced enough to see this. If he does become leader of the ALP or even PM it will be for a very short period of time and leading a damaged party. How could personal knowledge of Rudd change this observation? The other possible scenario, that Rudd thinks he is a 'saviour', is possibly more damaging than the revenge raionale. Or maybe you think Rudd is not behind any of this and the cause of all the hoopla should be traced back to his supporters? Still can't see how 'personal knowledge' helps?
Nic Stuart
(logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Dear Glen,
Sorry not to have been more precise earlier. I thought that journalism was meant to be all about getting out and about and finding out what's happening and that was the point of my first post.
I was picking on the assumption that Rudd knows and "probably accepts" that he'll never be leader again. How exactly can anyone 'know' what Rudd feels unless they've had a chat with him? I've been speaking to Labor people about this challenge since early November and I wouldn't dare to extrapolate any assumptions about anything that might be going on in his mind.
You state, and I agree, that "it is clear that this leadership nonsense is damaging ALP prospects. Rudd is surely experienced enough to see this." The second sentence assumes that Rudd recognises that he won't get the numbers. The point is that many people believe Gillard's leadership is damaging the party more than the current clash. Hence the destabilisation continues.
Glen Fuller
(logged in via Twitter)
"The point is that many people believe Gillard's leadership is damaging the party more than the current clash. Hence the destabilisation continues."
Fair enough!
Andrew Jakubowicz
(Professor of Sociology and Codirector of Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Research Centre at University of Technology, Sydney)
Of course it may be that Rudd really doesn't want the boring job of PM .... been there, done that, stuffed up.... now on to the world stage? Big fish in small pond pales as an attraction when you can be medium fish in big pond with room to grow.