Rudd is Labor's last chance

TWO questions will dominate the period that remains of the failed Gillard government - the timing of the election and whether Labor will switch leaders before that poll. But the more important question for Labor is how it came to this.

Canberra insiders tend to make a case for the government running full term and Labor not risking a leadership change. But viewed from outside that prism, with pressure building every day on the government and the independent MPs, it seems inevitable that something will give.

Kevin Rudd's heart operation highlights the dilemma and reduces the options, for now. The precarious numbers in parliament mean that even his most bitter enemies within Labor ranks will be praying for a speedy recovery because if he were forced to retire due to ill-health a by-election could bring down the government. But unfortunately for Rudd the timing of what will be a two-month furlough couldn't be worse. Despite the simmering resentment towards him among his caucus colleagues he remains Labor's best leadership alternative.

Again, Canberra insiders tend to discount this view, arguing Rudd's fellow MPs would never tolerate his return to the leadership. Of course, they never liked him in the first place, installing him as leader in 2006 against their own instincts, in an act of political desperation that worked. That antipathy, of course, is part of the reason they were so quick to dump him. And now, as the Prime Minister sinks in the public's estimation a return to Rudd would be perhaps the only leadership change that might be plausible in the public's eye, and therefore save as many Labor MPs as possible.

It would amount to an act of contrition from the party, and Rudd, for the leadership and policy shenanigans of the past 18 months. It would amount to a reboot of sorts for Labor, allowing the party to reset itself and start afresh. The Rudd alternative makes much more sense, and is easier to justify, than Labor switching to yet another unknown quantity as a leader, another prime minister who has never been endorsed by the electorate.

Fundamentally, what Labor must consider is how it has burned so much public goodwill and spurned so much of its political base during the past 18 months. It is too easy to blame mere incompetence. Certainly from pink batts, to carbon tax, to live cattle, to the East Timor and Malaysian solutions, and now the media inquiry distraction, the lack of political and administrative competency has been writ large. But the Labor movement needs to look for the root causes, and most of this comes back to two points: a disconnect between the party's leadership and mainstream voters; and uncertainty about Labor's core values.

Gillard's condescending tone and language betrays the disconnect. If she were comfortable among working families and understood their priorities she would not speak down to them. "When we see a big thing happen overseas," Gillard said in a media conference last week, referring to the phone hacking issue, "it causes us to reflect on circumstances in our own nation." In patronising language she sought to take an insider's concern about the media/political interchange and confer it on to the list of mainstream priorities. This sort of misjudgment just makes her seem out of touch.

If politicians don't have a sense of what interests or motivates the mainstream, they can be easily influenced by jejune staffers, activist lobby groups and minor parties. They might, for instance, overreact to a media backlash over the live cattle trade, or abandon a tough reform such as an emissions trading scheme then get talked into taking it up again, or weaken the nation's border protection before seeing boats arrive again and deciding to reimpose a tough regime. Jumping this way and that according to polls, media attacks or political pressure will never create a sense of a competent, serious government.

Many politicians and their staffers become extremely isolated from the mainstream of the nation they seek to represent. Many go straight from university politics into political jobs. They work long hours, fill their weekends with party functions, socialise with party people and consume themselves with all things political. They like to convince themselves that they are masters at reading polls and media trends. But they forget to do normal things like stand around a suburban football ground and chat to friends who work as bricklayers or accountants, or have a meal with non-political friends and talk about everything except politics.

They spend too much time in Canberra surrounded by obsequious public servants, flattering journalists, conspiring colleagues and no such thing as a home-cooked meal. Too many of them talk about the public as a commodity. They actually come to believe that media lines and parliamentary performances control public opinion. They forget to listen to the public.

The politicians who understand and avoid this trap best are those with marginal lower house seats, who spend much of their time in their electorates, soaking up public attitudes. Safe seat MPs and senators can spend more time with the party faithful than with the mainstream. As prime minister it is impossible to have any "normal" time with the public, so their instincts need to be well-honed and they need to be surrounded by people who are still in touch. Some politicians carry briefing notes prepared by staff containing talking points about "everyday" concerns like who's playing in the footy finals or what's happened to the price of milk.

This insiders culture seems to have infected Labor and had a deleterious impact on its political decision making. Especially given that in the post-Cold War and post-Hawke/Keating era, Labor has failed to adequately redefine its core values. It eschews the old sense of socialism yet it is building a new government communications monopoly. It considers itself socially progressive yet rejects gay marriage. It claims the environment as home turf yet flip-flops on an emissions trading scheme. It is delivering larger government but claims this is not what it stands for.

Knowing the priorities of the public and knowing your own core beliefs must be the two main signposts for governments. And whoever leads Labor next must identify those signposts.