Jim Chalmers’ personal attack on Peter Dutton is bizarre and unwise

Jim Chalmers took aim at Peter Dutton during a speech on Monday night. Picture: Nadir Kinani

Jim Chalmers’ personal attack on Peter Dutton is extraordinary for two reasons.

It wasn’t only the level of vitriol contained in the Treasurer’s Monday night speech that was bizarre.

It was the fact that he chose to do it at all which should raise more than just an eyebrow.

It was all a bit unhinged. Accusing the Liberal leader of being the most divisive in living memory is a bit of a stretch. And if the polls are any indication, its certainly not a view shared by any sort of convincing majority.

For a Treasurer who most would expect to be too busy trying to fight inflation and repairing the economy, he may not have done himself any favours.

Intellectually, Chalmers must know that the minute a Treasurer steers away from his main job, it sends the wrong message.

Which raises the question; why do it?

The first impression might be one of a leadership hopeful indulging the moment to lift his own profile with the Labor base.

The more likely explanation is that Chalmers was under instruction from central command.

This is only re-enforced by the prime minister’s own response on Tuesday morning, when he rushed in to back his Treasurer’s political assault.

You don’t need a PhD to work out what this is all about.

Having lost control of the political agenda, Anthony Albanese has leant back on the sort of personality politics that arose from the activist’s handbook on how to win an argument after you’ve already lost it.

When the substance of a debate isn’t going your way, attack the opponent rather than the issue.

Chalmers has been slow to catch up. This all started last week in parliament with the government under extreme pressure over the Gaza visa.

Albanese directed the troops to go after Dutton personally.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Chalmers, who insiders claim is a little unsettled by the criticism from economists, has now joined the fray.

The problem for Chalmers is that while he has a bigger megaphone than most of his colleagues by virtue of being Treasurer, its unlikely that most voters will be receptive to what is blaring out of it.

Most, it could be assumed, would prefer Chalmers to be concentrating on his day job.

But this is vintage Albanese. And he used it to devastating effect against Scott Morrison.

By the time Morrison caught on and tried to counter, the damage was already done.

Albanese appears to be convinced that he can re-run the last election using the same tactical weapon against Dutton.

And this might have been true if Albanese’s own leadership wasn’t so diminished. It’s unlikely to be as compelling this time around considering Albanese’s standing is considerably lower than it used to be and only marginally better than Dutton’s.

Not only this, but Albanese and now Chalmers may well being on the wrong side of the issue, assuming that Chalmers’ attacks have their foundation on Dutton’s call to pause visas for Palestinians.

An Essential Research poll, which historically favour the left on social issues it surveys, found that the number of voters that support Dutton’s view outnumbers those opposed by a factor of two to one.

Attacking Dutton, therefore, appears flawed at two levels – the low hit rate Labor might otherwise expect from pursuing personality politics and the fact the issue it has decided to base this on isn’t one that appears to be playing in its favour.