Federal Labor - led by a red(head)

The deed is done - it was done with a speed and a brutality that schocked many Australians and Labor Party members. People woke up on Wednesday and travelled to work with barely any sense that by 9.30am the next day, their Verbose, Christian Queenslander would be removed from office and replaced with a left-wing, childless, unmarried, atheist, redheaded Victorian woman.

It's a spectacular amount of change in a very short period of time. I doubt even Gillard was expecting to be Prime Minister when she woke up on Wednesday. And yet, here she is. Australia's first female prime minister - and I truly believe she has the capacity to be of our greats. And the fact that she's all of those above things, to me, is a victory.

But despite the cause for celebration, you still get this lingering sense of discomfort at the way this all happened. It was too fast, too brutal, and too easy. Kevin Rudd led labor to one of its greatest ever election wins in 2007. Many Australians voted for Labor at the last election on the assumption that Rudd would lead the Labor party for a full term. In fact, when John Howard refused to serve a full term as Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd said he would. Expect to see those promises feature prominently in Liberal Party advertising within the next few months.

I'm sure it makes many Australians feel uncomfortable that a few factional powerbrokers and unions can remove a prime minister so quickly and with such devastating ease. Removing a Premier is one thing, but removing a Prime minister is quite another.

To understand how this all happened I think we need to rewind right back to the 2007 election and and go through the logical chain of events. Everything happens for a reason - even if it happens quickly. There have been warning signs for months, even years.

Rudd has a personal leadership style that was very grating to his colleagues. In 2007, he was seen as the saviour of Labor, and thus was granted unprecedented authority by his colleagues to do what he liked and to run his won agenda. For a while, it seemed to work. He said sorry to the stolen generation, made a cvonfident start on foreign policy, and when the financial crisis hit in late 2008, he gathered together his 3 most trusted ministers and made some very speedy and important decisions that saved Australia from the financial crisis.

But Rudd never had a personal power base of support deep within the party. And he alienated many of his colleagues by his "my way or the highway" style. He showed a sense of disinterest in many of his colleagues, some of whom were cabinet ministers. He didn't trust them wholeheartedly to make the right decisions. Very early on there were stories in the media that the entire government was effectively being run through Rudd's office - some only a few months after he was prime minister. He was described as all-knowing, all-controlling, and an authoritarian. Policy logjams were forming because everything had to go through his office. The staff turnover in his office demonstrates the incredible workload that he and his staff had to deal with.

As long as Rudd had the magic policy touch, he was going to be untouchable. During the financial crisis, he and his "gang of four" made some very effective and correct policy decisions on how to save the economy, through the bank guaruntee, to the stimulus packages, and the money spent building infrastructure. These good decisions brought calm, stability, and credibility to governmance in Australia. Rudd stayed very high, artificially one might argue, in the opinion polls.

But when he started making bad decisions, and when he started to go down in the polls, his automatic authority was always going to come into question. And when the chaos in his office started leading to poor policy or inadequate checking of decisions, like the insulation scheme, there was always going to be a push on to force Rudd to change his style.

The insulation scheme itself is a good example of where a little industry knowledge, (including asking unions and the industry), and a bit of proof-reading from colleagues might have made for a better designed scheme. There was nothing wrong with the idea - in fact it remains a very good one. But the design was poor, and was rushed into the implementation stage too quickly. There was a pressing need to do so but we now know it wouldn't have harmed the government or the country to spend a few weeks ironing out some of the kinks - with better consultation from cabinet and caucus, this could have occured.

This was a decision that was made in the heat of the moment. But despite that, and despite the financial situation calming down, the government continued with the same style of decision making. The seeds were there very early on for a sudden and dramatic downfall if something went haywire in Rudd's government.

I personally believe, however, that at any stage over the past 6 months, and even the past few weeks, the situation was salvageable. It should have been possible to save Kevin Rudd's leadership. But part of the problem was that Rudd got too used to acting like an autocrat - while he was making the right decisions, he was popular and everyone lived with it. But when things went wrong, everyone blamed Rudd - even though the failures were not solely his.

I personally believe that if the right political and policy choices were made 6 months ago, Rudd would still be sitting in the lodge right now, in his second term, with an emissions trading bill passed through parliament.

Six months ago, before the copenhagen conference, Rudd described Climate Change as "the greatest moral challenge of our time". People took him at his word, and it was reflected in his policy - a unilateral emissions cut in the absense of a global climate change deal, and a bigger cut if there was global agreement at copenhagen. I felt at the time that thiis was exactly right - establish it as soon as possible, then once in, it

To get his ETS through the senate, Rudd had to talk to the liberals. Getting an ETS passed without them was never going to fly, because the greens, xenophon and steven fielding were never going to agree on an ETS. Steve Fielding is a climate change denier and would not have voted for any ETS.

So the government attempted to negotiate with the liberals (the nationals were opposed). The negotiations were rocky, but Malcolm Turnbull had effectively reached an agreement. Unfortunately Turnbull suffered from the same problem as Rudd - he didn't consult his colleagues properly. It turned out that a majority of liberal MP's were climate skeptics or deniers - and when they realised this, they ripped Turnbull apart. Tony Abbott was unexpectedly made the liberal leader and dumped the ETS deal.

At this point, Rudd had too choices.

He could go to an early election in march (a double dissolution) and ram the ETS down the liberals throat.

Or he could stick to his earlier view that Australians will punish the government for going to an early election.

Rudd chose the latter option - his first mistake. The coalition would not have won an election in March, especially not under Abbott. The headlines for Abbott in March were mostly negative - although his soundbytes were getting traction, he was being trashed for his economic credibility in the media. Unfortunately for Rudd, around the same time the insulation scheme started blowing up, which spooked them away from an early election. They had to cancel the scheme.

then a number of other things happened. Firstly, the government reneged on a promise for child care centres. Two policy backflips started to put doubts in the minds of people.

The big hole was what to do about the emissions trading scheme. Apparently, sernior sections of the NSW Right faction, along with a few other senior figures (including Gillard), advised Rudd to delay the scheme until 2013. Rudd reluctantly took their advice - another big mistake. This was an enormous policy backflip that made him look like he didn't believe in anything, given his earlier comments.

He then signed a health deal without the agreement of Western Australia.

And finally, the Henry review was released. With so many cancelled policies, and Abbott running a completely obstructionist opposition, the government desperately flailed around for something to do. The government latched on to the recommendation to introduce a mining super profits tax. It seemed like a good idea - Australians would respond to the class warfare aspect of miners paying more tax, and the extra revenue would help pay off Australia's budget defecit.

This turned out to be a big mistake. Rudd and Swan knew this was going to cause a ruckus, and decided to break their promise on taxpayer funded advertising to shore up public support. It was a dumb decision and nobody at any stage advised against it. Rudd tried to strike in the dead of night by including the superprofits tax in the budget. The government dug a hole for itself and couldn't get out.

At any stage, Rudd could have tried a more consultative approach to the negotiations. But he didn't do so. he approached the mining companies the same way he approached his colleagues - he made the decisions around here, and he'll consult you after the decisions were made.

All of these decisions started piling up - and the polls kept going down. Although Labor was still about 52-48 on the 2PP votes in most newspolls, the damage was far worse and far more fundamental. The Primary vote was down to 35 percent - even with a high greens vote, that put labor in some serious trouble. The government itself was unable to function - with Rudd not consulting and unable to backflip further on policy. Nor could it get good messages out - an announcement on Paid Maternity leave was only in the media for 2 days before the mining ads took over again.

Unions started worrying that they had spent 11 years trying to get rid of John Howard and would then hand the reins back to Tony Abbott.

And then the fateful decisions were made by powerbrokers and unions - that Rudd had to go. When the end came, it came swiftly, with Rudd not being able to rely on any strong support within the party to keep his job. As a first term prime minister, this was pretty shocking.

It's important to remember that at any point during this 6-month period, it could have been different. If the right advice had been given, If Rudd changed his style, and if people stopped panicking and started fixing problems, the situation was retrievable. rudd would still have probably won the election, but the regrettable decision was made.

I think most Australians are now looking for a reason for the change. Does Gillard lead to an improvement in fortunes for Labor? My own feeling is that leadership change without policy change is political suicide. Gillard's first task is to fix up the mining tax - negotiate the details with the industry and get it done. They don't want those mining ads back on TV during the election, because they were killing labor.

They also will be looking to Gillard so she can prove that she's far more powerful than the people who put her there. This doesn't send a good look to the electorate, so they will be looking for a vote as soon as possible. If a mining tax deal is reached soon, Gillard will go to the polls, fix up labor's ETS policy during the campaign, and she'll win.

The plague on both houses

"I think the problem with Centre Unity in NSW is that it lacks now an ideology. When I say an ideology, it lacks an ideology other than the sheer pursuit of power. It's clear enough about that, but power for what? And to do what? This is where the national Party always depended on Centre Unity, its processes, its real-world touch. When the motivation of the machinery of the party is unfurnished as to policy purpose, it has nothing more to offer than to focus on marketing and polls. After a while the public becomes aware of this and they realise that marketing and spin have no basis."

- Paul Keating in "Betrayed", on the NSW Right Faction of the ALP

According to News ltd, he also describes it as a "patronage club" no longer capable of delivering meaningful reform. Just what kind of reform is up for debate. But I think he is right - they have lost quite a large sense of their own direction, and in the absence of that have simply turned to enjoying the spoils of power.

But just in case anyone thought the liberal party were better:

"'Just wish Stu had stood for preselection in a state seat and joined O'Farrell's front bench as racing minister after the state election - we need a racing man in state Parliament''.
- Gary Knight, manager for Netranix (a horse racing company) mistakenly thinking the Liberal candidate for the Penrith by-election, Stuart Ayres, was running for a federal seat. Ayres has a 5% stake in Netranix.

Yes. Because that's what NSW needs- more state politicians with connections to the racing industry.