Katharine Murphy -Nov 20, 2012
Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull, with Tony Jones, on Q&A. Photo: Peter Cox
It speaks of our times – the progressive detachment of politics from old-fashioned principles and values, the relentless rise of the presidential "personality" – that it seems plausible Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull could form a breakaway political party.
Plausible enough for the two politicians to get a question from the audience on the ABC's Q&A program.
The rationale for this new RuddBull (or perhaps BullRudd) party was Turnbull and Rudd were wealthy moderates disliked by their colleagues but popular in the community – so why don't you dudes hook up?
Small print, like the differences in views between the founding fathers, and the long ideological traditions of the parties they currently serve, was apparently unimportant. Love, or mutual self-interest, or the vibe, or something, would conquer all.
Turnbull's reaction said it all really: "It's very flattering, but er ... no."
You've never considered it, host Tony Jones persisted, with his characteristic, entirely-pleased-with-himself verbal eyebrow arch. Turnbull, mildly incredulous: "What, forming a political party with Kevin?" Much laughter from the audience.
I laughed, thinking how this double-headed juggernaut would roll in practice. Turnbull's expansive London School of Economics-style salon meets Rudd's chaotic Neverland. BullRudd: a party where people with not much in common apart from appearances and a powerful sense of destiny about their own leadership capacity don't have to agree on anything at all.
A thing of wonder really. Worth the price of admission.
It is striking though how often you get the question from people outside politics: why aren't Rudd and Turnbull leading their respective parties, or why don't they join forces?
I get it at the doctors, or at the corner shop, or from old friends confused about all the antics in the capital.
It's partly about them: Turnbull's conservative colleagues would have you believe he's a closet communist rather than a classic small-l Liberal who is economically rational and cautiously socially progressive. Rudd is a Labor man by instinct, conditioning and creed – yet he doesn't play well with others, and his prime ministership was, at times, confusingly post-partisan. He gave plum jobs to Liberals. He was relentlessly brand Kevin first and brand Labor second.
But I reckon it's a question bigger than these two men.
It's a question that neatly plots the gulf between the way politics is practised and the expectations of voters. The question is actually this: Why don't we like or connect with any of the current national leadership options? Where has the political centre gone, who took it and why did they take it? Is it ever coming back?
Why do people spend more time posturing and hurling soundbites in fluoro vests and hard hats than actually connecting with me?
Politics has disappeared into its own unsettling fog of contention and counter-contention. In that slightly surreal atmosphere, BullRudds roam in mythical paddocks, making it all real again.
Katharine Murphy is The Age's national affairs correspondent and writes The Pulse Live blog for The National Times.