Abbott and Gillard Labor over the flood issue

JULIA GILLARD and Tony Abbott spent the post-election months of 2010 locked in political gridlock – after a virtual dead-heat election – and that's where they've been in the early days of the new year.

An Essential Research poll last week had the Coalition leading Labor 51-49 per cent. Presumably some time one or other will break away. But which one, and when?

Will the flood issue provide either side with a political advantage? Gillard hasn't made a very good impression with her on-the-ground appearances. But now she has a detailed recovery package on which people will make fresh judgments. Its inclusion of a levy is provocative, but the government is so committed to its 2012-13 return to surplus that it thought it necessary. Getting another $2 billion spending cuts over and above the $2.8 billion cuts that were found was just too hard.

It's a gamble for Gillard, but Abbott is gambling, too, in opposing the special tax hike. So far, he's done well as the man who says "no" – the "oppositionist" par excellence – with his mantra of condemning various "great big new taxes" (the emissions trading scheme, mining tax). He hopes his luck, or political instinct, will hold. His risk is that people may see this new tax as an exceptional case.

The floods are a national disaster and, for countless Australians, an individual tragedy. But they've seen Queensland Premier Anna Bligh show the sort of leadership of which many had thought her incapable. The turnaround in Bligh's fortunes underlines how fickle politics can be, though how long it holds is another matter.

Now Gillard is hoping her $5.6 billion package will be seen as an example of decisiveness and political courage; a defining moment in what are still the relatively early days of her prime ministership (perhaps something like John Howard and the gun levy?). This banks on a certain selflessness on the part of those taxpayers who will be shelling out more.

Of course, the immediate challenge is to get the levy through the Parliament. Its fate is in the hands of the crossbenchers. It's hard to think they'll thwart the government in these circumstances, but they'll want to be seen to extract concessions in return for support.

Gillard has stirred outrage among the Greens for her slashing of some climate programs, but what is the message ordinary people will take from these decisions? She is banking on their buying her line that her proposed carbon price renders these programs easily dispensable.

Some critics of the programs will say this has been a good opportunity to get rid of bad policy. But will voters also reflect on the political cynicism involved? "Cash for clunkers", spruiked to cost $429 million, was an election gimmick now never to see the light of day. Other green initiatives scrapped or cut were talked up by Labor only to be talked down again when convenient.

There are balances here – of course when circumstances change, new decisions must be made and priorities rearranged. But when politicians break promises so readily (remember Gillard's Citizens Assembly, quickly dispatched?) they shouldn't be surprised at having trouble getting people to believe them.