'Rudd should ...', 'Gillard should ...' And so the national conversation drones on, constantly crossing the divide between moral imperatives and self-interested political plotting. Things are now so messy, you wonder whether there is any point in trying to sieve the short term political interests of the players from the moral imperatives of good policy and sound administration in the national interest.
It's not as if this level of intrigue, back-stabbing and character assassination is anything new in Australian tussles for the top job in politics. Think only of Hawke and Keating. They sealed a pact in November 1988 secretly agreeing to a seamless transfer of the leadership baton down the track. Their fellow ministers and caucus members were not privy to it; and we the public were completely oblivious.
Keating announced a challenge to Hawke in May 1991, having voiced his discontent with Hawke in December 1990 when he delivered a speech which Hawke described as 'treacherous'. In January 1991, Hawke and Keating had a three hour meeting seeking a way through the impasse. Each was immovable. The deal was off.
At the first ballot on 3 June 1991, Keating lost by 44 votes to 66 votes. He went to the back bench insisting that he had only one shot in the locker. No one believed him. He and his backers worked feverishly in the next six months, waiting for Hawke and his substitute treasurer to make mistakes. Keating was not there to help. He just waited in the wings. He then won his second challenge on 20 December 1991 by 56 votes to 51.
In the lead up, the media gave him a dream run. What's different about Gillard and Rudd? Gillard is more unpopular than Hawke ever was. Rudd is more popular than Keating was in the lead up to his first challenge. And Rudd's already had one go in the top job.
From day one, Keating wanted to knock off Hawke so that he could be prime minister. Rudd has not declared a challenge. Whether or not that is simply the result of personal calculations about caucus popularity does not matter. If he were to challenge, like Keating he would probably lose the first round and he would have no option but go to the backbench.
Then to do what? Spend the next six months undermining Gillard