Voters want Julia Gillard to play to her convictions

Lobbecke illustration

VOTERS are crying out for strong leadership. They want politicians who have the courage of their convictions. Too few in the modern poll-driven age do.

So why is Julia Gillard so unpopular as she goes about advocating a carbon price, something all sides of politics agree is a transformative policy development? Why, in particular, given there is near universal consensus from industry to Treasury to the environmental movement that Tony Abbott's direct action alternative is more expensive and less efficient?

The answer, if you ask her supporters, highlights why they are in denial about the perilous position Labor is in under Gillard's leadership. A biased media, relentless negativity from the opposition and sexism are the causes most relied on to explain Labor's plight, but they shouldn't be anywhere near the top of the list.

Certainly, sections of the media have turned on the government. But that is a simple reflection of the polls and the problems it faces, rather than some co-ordinated conspiracy. Labor strategists have spent too long listening to Bob Brown's hypothesis about the Murdoch empire, it would seem.

Abbott's powerful critique of the government is cutting through, and he has certainly been negative in his messaging. But it has always been thus when oppositions put the pressure on. Labor's tactics throughout the Howard years were relentlessly negative, as Abbott is now. They just weren't as good at it.

If there is a lesson in the negativity coming from the opposition leadership it is that such tactics don't ready a political party for the task of governing. (Just ask Labor.) That's where it starts and ends.

I have little doubt sexism still exists in our society and some voters (and commentators) view Gillard more harshly (or disrespectfully) because of her sex. But that is at the periphery of Labor's problems, not the centre. The reason Gillard gets so little credit for a bold piece of policy reform, which is a far more effective way to address the long-term issues of climate change than Abbott's half-baked alternative, is because few people believe that she is passionate about it.

We want leaders to lead and stop looking at the polls, but we need to believe they think what they are doing is important.

How can anyone be expected to think Gillard has her heart and head in carbon pricing when she convinced Kevin Rudd to dump the emissions trading scheme? When she proposed a lowbrow citizens assembly to discuss climate change as her election policy? When days out from what was shaping up as a close election she specifically ruled out a carbon tax? When she acknowledges that her backflip is a consequence of the new parliamentary paradigm?

Translation: the Greens wanted one as the price for helping Labor form minority government. It was an exercise in political survival, not inspirational leadership.

This series of events has unpicked Gillard's leadership, all the more so on the back of the way Rudd was disposed of, and the loss of legitimacy minority government causes.

The tragedy of the ever-failing Gillard experiment is it didn't need to be this way. Even taking into account the political pain the party suffered for its decision to remove Rudd, Gillard would have been far better placed now if she had defined herself on the issues she is passionate about.

Education, workplace relations and social justice: this is the triumvirate of issues that matter to our Prime Minister. They are the issues she has been passionate about her whole life. Not the environment, not climate change.

The contrast between her core beliefs and Rudd's superficial ones could have been used as a selling point for a transfer of leadership: from trendy issues of the Left

to core concerns of Labor's base.

And Gillard had shown enough in her work as a minister to avoid being typecast as a throwback to Labor leaders modern economic realities have moved us past.

Her advocacy of more power for school principals and the My School website showed she wasn't unaware of the need to move with the times. On industrial relations it is a different story, but Labor's policy is popular and no one doubts she genuinely believes in it.

Instead, Labor panicked after the election last year and moved to protect its left flank. It did so to secure an alliance with the Greens it thought it needed, forgetting Brown would have supported a Labor government of any complexion to deny Abbott the prime ministership.

Consider where we would be if the carbon tax had been left alone and Gillard had played to her policy strengths, which led the party to risk promoting her over an elected prime minister. Gillard's personal numbers and Labor's primary vote would not have collapsed. Abbott's poor personal ratings would be the issue, causing internal unrest within the opposition. Labor could get on with selling its other policies instead of being constantly on the back foot over the carbon tax. And policy contradictions from the opposition would be at centre stage.

What a difference not listening to Brown would have made for the government. Doing so has cost Labor any chance of a third term with the present policy and leadership configurations.

SOMETHING important happened early this week. NSW Labor Party secretary Sam Dastyari wrote an opinion piece calling for an end to speculation about alternative leaders. He wants Gillard to have security in her job despite all the problems.

He wants to send a message to future leaders that the NSW Right - the factional force that saves or slays Labor leaders - is going to give them certainty, starting with Gillard. Certainty to shine or fail, free of the threat of being rolled.

Dastyari's hope is that, in time, loyalty to leaders will lift the quality of their convictions (unlike Gillard, hopefully in policy areas they actually are passionate about). It's a good idea, as long as the NSW Right does not flinch.

Also implicit in Dastyari's doctrine is that if Gillard is defeated at the next election, the baggage of defeat would go with her, rather than the party being blamed because it cycled through leaders. There is an element of the "cut your losses now" philosophy.

However, in a final sign of the Prime Minister's failure to pick the right issues at the right time, I wonder how her comments to the Chifley Research Centre yesterday have affected Dastyari's loyalty to her, even if he has spruiked party reform himself. The only thing saving Gillard now is the support of the factional chiefs, yet yesterday she discussed their toxic influence on the party and the need for reform. (Her exact words were more diplomatic.)

When you are under siege on all sides, why not pick a fight with the few remaining troops bunkered down with you in the trenches? The ones who can see you through. Clever stuff.

Peter van Onselen is a Winthrop professor at the University of Western Australia.