In the last week, the leader of the opposition, Anthony Albanese reshaped his front bench, particularly so as to emphasise that Labor's policies, even about climate change, are all about jobs. Jobs, jobs and jobs, he said, parroting a 1983 slogan of Neville Wran, and perhaps seeking to convey an impression that he would never let a strong climate change policy stand in the way of any interest, any trade union, or any worker. He has to do something, everyone seems to be agreed, though what that something is finds little agreement at all. For the usual suspects, something seems to mean weakening and de-emphasising the policy so as to secure the grudging approval of an independent Murdoch scrutiny. For others, retreat from weak policies to even weaker ones may be the last straw for core party members who feel that their party has consistently sold out principle since the Tampa crisis of 2001.

Albanese is being told that he must re-invent and re-market his policies because they are not "cutting through". That may be because they are bad policies, or at least ones ill-adapted for obtaining the support of voters at an election. Or it may be that the spokesmen and women, and the leader himself, are ineffective in selling the policies and setting the agenda in the context of the pandemic and recent economic crisis, or in bad need of the services of an advertising agency and some low commitment/high emotional appeal slogans, images and marketing agit-prop.

Just what the words "cutting through" might mean is not always explained. Many in Labor have persuaded themselves that they lost the 2019 election because of being too bold. I have thought that the big political weakness of Labor's policies on climate change - at the last election as much as now - is that the electorate rightly perceived that Labor, from the top down, was usually speaking with a forked tongue - saying one thing to one interest group, for example to inner city advocates of urgent and dramatic action on the one hand - and another to mining workers and potential mining workers.

The mixed messaging was deliberate. It did not impress an array of potential Labor voters, particularly those with a strong interest one way or another in the practical effects of having a Labor government. Greenies feared Labor half-heartedness, and fairly rightly so; those focused on the jobs mirage feared Labor treachery, and fairly rightly so. It hardly needed the government or the Murdoch press to stress all of the contradictions, or the fact that Bill Shorten and others were saying one thing here and the opposite there. People without strong convictions probably decided for other reasons.

On climate change, voters want clarity, not obfuscation, honesty, not slogans. And strong, not weak policy. By all means link it with investment in new jobs in a new economy, but not so as to smother the project.

That problem has persisted since the 2019 election, not least since the self-nomination by Joel Fitzgibbon as the Labor champion of mining jobs, and the mischief against Albanese's leadership being wrought by factional players such as Kimberley Kitchen. The impact of the 2019-20 bushfires on a public sense of urgency about the need for strong action has been allowed to dissipate, or be overshadowed by the pandemic. So disorganised has Labor itself been, indeed, that it has scarcely been able to capitalise on the poor performance on energy policy from Angus Taylor, attempts to stare down the climate change tide by Scott Morrison, or the host of contradictory positions the government has adopted.

Most observers have expected that the advent of Joe Biden in the US, and America's rejoining the Paris Convention might galvanise some change, however cosmetic, by Morrison, lest he, and Australia cement their place on the wrong side of history. One might have expected some concerted Labor attack, or at least some concentrated sniping designed to push Morrison on to unfavourable ground. But Labor has been so absorbed in the politics, personalities and economics of climate change policy, or so focused on criticising Morrison for backing the wrong horse in the US election, that it has scarcely been heard in commentary about the climate change plans of Biden and Kamala Harris.

Labor, moreover, is not yet well positioned to take local political advantage if, as seems likely, Biden's determination on the subject goes beyond chiding a few recalcitrant nations to the imposition of political and economic penalties, including in access to the US market. It's quite likely the world will implement some sort of carbon price charged at the border to those more focused on "sovereignty" than effective action. If this is the direction in which he goes, the US is unlikely to be alone. Europe, the Pacific and most of the developed world are far from impressed by Australia's performance.

Even Britain has, in Boris Johnson, a conservative prime minister enthusiastic for climate change action. Johnson has so many domestic political problems, not least with his mismanagement of the pandemic and the general chaos of the post-Brexit economy, that political desperation for a trade deal with Australia may overcome any push to punish exporters with high emissions.

Polls have consistently found that about two thirds of the population want more urgent action on climate change. They see rising temperatures as an emergency, and a result of consciously timid government policies. The sense of urgency was reinforced by the 2019-20 bushfires on the eastern coast, and by increasing recognition by the business and finance sector that the default coalition policy - of kowtowing to the hydrocarbon industry, even with the latest suggestion of a gas-fired industry - will further damage the environment, and probably Australia's reputation.

To the extent that Morrison has an agenda, whether in the electorate or with business interests, it has not been supported with reasoned argument, respect for the scientific evidence. His pretence that his policy is a compromise between balancing the health of the economy against his desire that Australia do everything it can is a sham.

Morrison has instead mobilised, and kept in continual anxiety, voters and interests opposed to climate action, including miners and mining unions. At the same time, he has used some skilful nurturing, not least of electricity prices, to make the issue seem a second tier one among most ordinary voters, particularly in the outer suburbs. These, it seems, are intellectually convinced about the need for more to be done, tend mostly to be critical of the coalition government when they think about, but do not see the issue as the most important in their lives.

That's a significant Labor marketing failure. It should be honest with the electorate, including explaining the costs of doing nothing or too little. Labor has instead been focusing on the noisier lobbies. Effective action, and wider political success, involves galvanising potential constituencies otherwise not very hostile to the government. A Labor Party that abdicates this role, or which shrinks from an honest debate, is not worthy of holding power.

Writing about Joe Biden and Donald Trump last week, I commented that Biden did not defeat Trump by winning over people who had supported Trump at the 2016 election. If there was any conversion experience - of constituencies moving away from Trump - they were more than balanced by new groups, including former Democrat supporters, particularly in African-American and Latino communities who became Trump supporters during his term of office. In 2016, Trump received 63 million votes (three million fewer than Hillary Clinton, but he had an electoral college majority). In 2020, 11 million more people voted for Trump; he received 74 million votes. But the Democrats increased their 2016 haul from 66 million to 81 million - 15 million more. That Trump was gobsmacked by his defeat is to a degree understandable when one considers that an enormous effort by his party increased its 2016 vote by 17 per cent. Alas for him, the Democrats found even more new constituencies, increasing its vote by 23 per cent.

That's an interesting aspect of current US politics - and a reminder that the Trump machine still exists. But Australian politics are different, not least because of our law of compulsory attendance at the polling booth. At each new election, there are new voters, and past statistics suggest that Labor captures more of them, in two party preferred terms, particularly because Labor (and the Greens) are judged better than the coalition on climate change policies. But this is a long-term trend, not necessarily one that will alone tip the next election.

If Albanese is to become prime minister, he must win votes which, at the last election, were cast for the coalition. It would be nice for him if Labor could retrieve the votes of Queensland and Hunter River mining workers who fear that Labor is selling them out. It is doubtful, however, that these are enough. Labor badly needs converts in the outer suburbs and in semi-rural constituencies that could turn marginal coalition seats into Labor ones.

MORE WATERFORD:

It may be helpful if the message on climate were packaged in a message about Labor having a plan to create new economy post-pandemic jobs, particularly in areas that will be put under employment pressure as a result of the inexorable march away from hydrocarbon energy, polluting businesses and regions that are already suffering from climate change. But it is no mere matter of marketing, or slogans, or the cunning switching of messages according to the audience. Nor can it be a matter of de-emphasising the importance or significance of the climate change issue: that will play only into Morrison's hands.

Two other points worth mentioning. Much of the talk of "cutting through" failures seems based on the idea that Labor is hopelessly behind in the polls. It is not. It lost the last election narrowly, and the government has a majority of only one. Whatever credit voters give Morrison or the government for pandemic or economic management, the gap between the parties seems to be one or two per cent. The circumstances of the moment may favour a presidential-style Prime Minister, but at an election, whenever held, the rival leaders are on more equal terms. In that context, Morrison is open to attack, particularly on probity.

Second, there is a definite agenda, on the part of some in Labor, to be rid of Albanese, a member of the emotional left. At the moment it rather resembles the relentless undermining of Bill Hayden by Graham Richardson and others in 1982. The underminers, of course, wanted Hawke. There is no person of the calibre of Bob Hawke in the current Labor ranks, and the disloyalty can only hurt Labor in the short term.

With or without an accompanying industry policy, Labor stands to gain more votes by being fair dinkum about genuine climate action than it does by fudging the choices.

There's another practical problem with the reshuffle. The last Labor minister able to develop an effective whole-of-government approach to jobs and industry, education, skills and infrastructure was Simon Crean, about 30 years ago. His working nation and other policies, mostly under Paul Keating, were effective because of his very strong union background and contacts, and because of bureaucratic structures and personalities experienced in labour market programs.

Richard Marles, the Labor deputy leader, with the super shadow ministry designed to be all things, does not have Crean's background, experience or political skills.

He is obviously treasured by the faction which put him into the deputy leadership. But he is virtually unknown to the electorate, and lacks the reputation, clout or obvious strength of personality to make things happen. He may improve with experience, but putting him in his new place (from defence, where he couldn't make an impression on a soft silk cushion, in spite of opportunities begging) is hardly putting a heavyweight, a professional, or a solid practical thinker into the job.

If Labor was firing with all of its engines, or if Albanese had the self-confidence, he should be bending Bill Shorten to the task he has just given Marles. That has personal and political risks for Albanese, but he has little to lose, and a Lodge to win.