Conviction politicians are hard to find in Australia these days.

Ten years ago, the then Liberal Party federal director, Lynton Crosby, said his research turned up two genuine conviction politicians - John Howard and Bob Brown.

But today, the leaders of the two major parties - Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott - are constantly wrestling with the concept, confusing the public about their positions on key policies. Their approach to climate change is the most graphic demonstration of that.

Gillard by all accounts was instrumental in persuading Kevin Rudd to drop an ETS when he was running the country. Then, as leader and in the run up to the election, she ruled out a carbon tax.

Now she is arguing passionately for a tax and eventually an ETS.

Abbott one day questions the science and the next declares that man made climate change is a reality.

Gillard, from the Labor Party's left, an atheist with a live-in boyfriend, nevertheless resists gay marriage and euthanasia. The public wonders whether that is her political, as opposed to her personal position.

The vulnerability of both leaders was on display in the parliament yesterday as they stood toe to toe and hurled insults at one another.

Abbott said of Gilllard that the public sees "wooden Julia, teary Julia, all the way with LBJ Julia, the George Washington never tell a lie Julia." But, he said, they never see the truthful Julia.

He said if she really was a conviction politician then "she should have the guts to face the people, to seek a mandate for the carbon tax."

Gillard said of Abbott that he was a hollow, bitter man who constantly got the big judgments wrong, whether it be on the flood levy or the mining tax.

She said he was not a liberal in the tradition of liberals past and that "even John Howard went to an election proposing an ETS".

Gillard said the public was "disgusted by his negativity and repulsed by his arrogance" and that he "doesn't stand for one thing that would improve the lives of Australian families".

The fact is that both major parties in recent years have assumed the default position - not doing or saying anything that might upset people.

Only now is the government breaking free from that self imposed constraint and striking out with apparent conviction on climate change. Without putting too much weight on consecutive Newspolls, the tactic seems to have gone down well with a lot of people. As climate change gathers momentum as an issue Abbott's approval rating has suffered and Gillard has opened up a 19 point gap as preferred prime minister.

If that trend holds, then it's worth raising the question: what would have happened had Labor not met the Coalition half way during the election campaign on issues like climate change and a big Australia? Would a sharper focus on those issues have given the public a better sense of Abbott's real dispositions?

Clearly now, Abbott feels he needs a boost to his "direct action" policy on climate change. He recently sat down with former leader Malcolm Turnbull and asked him whether he would now embrace the Coalition's policy. Turnbull said he could not.

Abbott then tried to persuade him to at least soften his stance in some way; offer a gesture.

But again Turnbull refused telling Abbott that he had to understand he felt absolutely committed to his position.

The conversation is evidence that if Turnbull is intent on one day again leading the Liberal Party, it will be on his terms. He refused to give an inch when his leadership was challenged, and as a result, he went down by one vote. Had he offered the party just a semblance of compromise, he probably would have survived. And still he remains true to his convictions.

If Lynton Crosby was to update his research after 10 years, whose name do you think would now emerge as a genuine conviction politician? But the Coalition is unlikely to ask the question for fear they may not like the answer.