Team Rudd

But he was also right to suggest that he was a good campaigner, if not a good closer. The basic idea was keeping Labor within reach of victory, then wheeling out the big policy guns for the campaign itself.

Such a strategy won’t be available to Team Rudd.

The main political danger he faces has been correctly identified by government strategists. He’s a canvas on which the Liberals can apply thick daubs of negative paint. His image is not well entrenched enough in the public mind to allow him to paint his own picture, unless he works really hard at his craft.

What Rudd needs to do is to pull together all the strands of Labor policy into a convincing narrative. That’s something the ALP hasn’t had since the days of Keating, though Latham went close to telling a compelling story about aspiration. But in the end Latham ran on Labor’s positives: and left the government clear air on its own strengths.

Rudd won’t be as susceptible as Latham to being characterised as a dangerous choice, because he’s more disciplined and balanced as a politician and a person. But he does need to come to terms with the fact that Howard has cleverly stolen much of the ALP’s ground on issues. If he can’t do this with a story that really does enunciate a coherent vision for Australia, he risks the fate of far too many opposition leaders - appearing purely negative. His own style could easily reinforce this perception.

There are early signs that Rudd will try to pick up Howard battlers by emphasising manufacturing and industry policy. There are economic nationalist sentiments able to be exploited. But this angle has to be handled carefully lest he be painted as a Creanite captive of the unions.

Rudd’s challenge is formidable, and he will need to be a better politician than Beazley ever was to win in 2007. His Achilles heel is similar to Beazley’s - lack of clarity about what he stands for. His danger is that his very freshness as a leader makes it far more vital for him to articulate such a vision clearly.