And Rudd decided against a double dissolution. If Aussies really wanted an ETS, that would have shown up in labor's internal polling and he would more likely have gone for the DD.
That's a very pertinent point Sails.
We all got caught up to some extent in the toxic finger pointing going on in Labor... and some still have trouble seeing through the toxic veneer spurled out by a few... but in the cool light of hindsight, I'm becoming more of the opinion that Rudd was more pragmatic, sensitive to and maliable by public opinion than any of the other key players who had links to and behaved similarly to the extremely toxic NSW party.
It was a smart political move to distance himself from all those corrupting influences in Labor from the beginning of his leadership campaign... something that leaves room for him to keep reviving himself in the ultimate court of public appeal. The stigma of domineering (in that toxic Labor caucus) and chaotic can potentially wash off relatively easy when cleansed by a fresh reform... as opposed to the more permanent stain of toxic, crony and corrupt of many others.
As you say Rudd had the option to go to a DD, but chose not too... it seems for good ideological reason and smart political tactics. He was prepared to change his position, to water it down. Again looking at the strong unmoved position of many of his colleagues on the carbon tax issue, it's apparent they resented his weakening the gov position.
At the risk of being branded a Rudd loyalist, I would also suggest from a tactical position he would not be in a hurry to vacate his seat as some of his colleagues have demanded and hand it over to the coalition or and independent...the sacrificial lamb power play of his more toxic power opponents such as approving a naïve or ignorant (of the back room deals) leader and killing them off later (esp NSW) if they don't march to their tune.
Similarly, he and many politicians have changed their position re gay marriage in the hope of earning a few more easy votes. I'm not convinced he (and some others) has a strong position on it, rather sees a political expedient advantage in trading away something on the lower end of his moral and ethical fabric for a bit of a political edge...
...which brings me back to that phrase that many detest, a leadership revival. I noted previously that while he undertook not to contest the current leadership ballot... he hasn't categorically ruled out recontesting in the future.
What would be the circumstances where he would recontest?! Firstly consider Gillards comment
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-14/julia-gillard-slams-labors-leadership-rules/4957886...
"These rules literally mean that a person could hang on as Labor leader and as prime minister even if every member of cabinet, the body that should be the most powerful and collegiate in the country, has decided that person was no longer capable of functioning as prime minister,"
when referring to Rudds new ballot rules.
At this point it's worth musing on the meaning of collegiate -
Of, relating to, or held to resemble a college... removing any doubt in-her-mind the crony, toxic club of cabinet members should be most powerful and untouchable by other mere MP's and party membership.
There is one little detail that I'm not clear on atm, ie whether the ballot tally will be released detailing the membership and caucus component... for transparency, so the membership can see which MP's are supporting whom. I expect the current corrupted or at least tainted (by pre-selection process) caucus to do some horse trading as usual and not wish to reveal their voting position. That may prompt Rudd to demand disclosure at some time, particularly if the polls decline and or fail to win next election.
Their own membership is a litmus test of the wider public. The logic is that if the Labor membership doesn't strongly support caucus, how do the caucus realistically expect the wider voting public to support them.
If further election losses or political embarrassment, as from manipulating the leadership process, can remove more dead wood from Labor, I'd suggest it's in Rudds nature to announce the party has been purged of his dreaded union, factional bosses and "faceless men", he has reformed, changed some policy positions and can again unite Labor to overtake Abbott. How's that for a prediction!!!
Who would Abbott fear most as Labor leader? I ask that as if in a substantially reformed labor caucus as I expect no one in contention there would concern Abbott too much atm.