LA Gillardine is poised to call an election. That will be a mistake.

Voters frown on transparent attempts to capitalise on a honeymoon. Julia Gillard needs time to establish genuine authority and steady the ship.

She is looking and acting poll-driven. Her gesture in having the member for Lindsay accompany her on a trip north to view patrol boats hit a new low in the boatpeople genre. Her shifting language on East Timor undercut any impact of her announcement.

Her election program will largely reflect Kevin Rudd's ideas for re-election. There has been little time to do more than change the face on election material. But the coup was all about the messenger rather than the message, OK?

Rudd would not be human if he did not feel some satisfaction at recent government stumbling. But he is up to something more than self-satisfaction. He is running a campaign that threatens the unity of Labor before and after the election.

Rudd is messing with Gillard's mind. He's a past master of the art. He messed with John Howard's mind in 2007 by putting up Maxine McKew in the seat of Bennelong. Her media profile gave McKew a platform to muster the anti-Howard forces in the seat.

Now Rudd is at it again. He is stalking both the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith. Rudd has made it clear he deserves and expects to get the foreign affairs portfolio after the election. It is his right as a former prime minister.

He is now in Washington, ostensibly attending the Australian American Leadership Dialogue of which he is a founding member. He has been busy lining up appointments with members of the Obama administration. The press has been briefed, allegedly by the American side, that Barack Obama rang him before talking to Gillard. He is running hard for Smith's job.

Rudd's future is already destabilising the government: witness the outburst in support of the ex-prime minister by the member for Flynn. More important, consider what could happen if Gillard wins the election.

Foreign minister Rudd would brook no interference in the portfolio from the Prime Minister or anyone else. Defence could also come more under his sway in the absence of a strong minister such as John Faulkner. The mooted replacement for Faulkner is Greg Combet, who would be no match for Rudd on international security matters.

Rudd may well envisage a diarchy in which Gillard reigns supreme on the domestic front while Rudd is the external supremo. This is no Hillary Clinton falling into line behind Obama. More of a co-prime ministership.

Some old hands will no doubt argue that Alexander Downer as a former leader went on to be a very good and long-serving foreign minister in John Howard's cabinet. Very true, but Downer put his leadership baton firmly back in his knapsack and knuckled down to the job as a team player. He contributed across the board to government policy and was a highly respected voice in cabinet; he did not upstage Howard at home or abroad. In turn he was given plenty of latitude in interpreting his brief.

Rudd fancies himself. He looks around the room and feels he is the smartest person in it. He consoles himself with the thought that Bill Clinton and Obama have said as much.

With a perspective such as that, imagine meetings of the cabinet's security committee, Rudd doing his PowerPoint presentations and neither officials nor other ministers getting a word in.

Cabinet meetings could become very difficult if Rudd is present to second-guess the Prime Minister. Consider his likely reaction every time some policy of his came up for review. The pressure on Gillard to revert to a kitchen cabinet would be inexorable, with all its attendant dangers of hasty and ill-thought-out decisions.

One argument in Rudd's favour at present is the policy debacle surrounding the on-again, off-again regional processing centre in East Timor. Where were Smith and his department when this all-too-clever plot was hatched? Who was consulted about whom to contact in East Timor? Why was the suggestion only casually dropped into a congratulatory conversation between Gillard and the President of Indonesia, our most important near neighbour?

Smith was visiting the region this week to talk up the proposal and consult. Maybe he can rope in Don Argus so they can visit the neighbouring countries and small miners in one go. The reaction in the region suggests a regional processing centre is dead on arrival. This week the Home Affairs Minister effectively conceded the point when he admitted that we won't see anything built in the next term of government.

How comfortable would Rudd be in pursuing regional consultations, given that the East Timor idea appears to have been raised and rejected during his watch? And how would he feel about pushing, in his own words, a "lurch to the Right" on asylum policy?

Labor hardheads will say that if Gillard wins this election she will owe Rudd nothing and can treat him accordingly. Rudd will counter that he is owed for going quietly and not recontesting the leadership, as well as for his many other splendid qualities.

A lot hinges on the size of her victory. The smaller the margin the more vulnerable she will be and more likely to want to keep her enemies in the tent. Based on present polls, Gillard has hardly improved on Rudd's last polls.

This week the Prime Minister was under pressure to nominate her ministers in the finance, defence and foreign affairs portfolios. Her cabinet line-up has been considerably weakened by the departure of Rudd, Faulkner and Lindsay Tanner. Simon Crean may not serve out a full term either, with talk of a diplomatic posting in the air.

Rudd came under pressure in 2007 to confirm Wayne Swan would be treasurer if Labor won. She should too, if only to stop the speculation about these now vacant senior positions.

Bill Shorten, Mark Arbib and David Feeney are owed for their part in knocking off Rudd.

Imagine a cabinet with one or two of these characters and Rudd. Or worse, the damage that could be wrought if the cabinet included them and not Rudd.

Plenty of time for mischief on the back bench.