Australia now remembers Scott Morrison can campaign. But will voters forget the past three years? | Katharine Murphy

On day one.

Morrison is better than John Howard, who was diabolically clever, but with an overhang of social awkwardness. Better than Julia Gillard, who struggled to be seen or heard in a misogynistic melange. Better than Malcolm Turnbull, who, in his exciting times, lacked a visage of non-threatening ordinariness. So better than them.

Abbott, who only knew how to wreck, had no visible talent for the prime ministership at all. Given how atrocious he was, it was astonishing he lasted as long as he did. The progressive technocrat Rudd had a mind that never stopped racing. He went at everything like he was shot out of a cannon. This was the crux of his problem. It led to his removal from the top job, effectively on a backroom impulse.

The moral of these musings is simple.

Some of our best political campaigners have been either deficient (Abbott), unmanageably chaotic (Rudd) or both obdurate and oddly directionless (Morrison). Yet voters learn this once the campaign ends.

As these deficiencies are consequential, this feels like a trend we should have a close look at.

Albanese contributed by failing to stick the dismount from the parliamentary theatre to the hellscape of the hustings. This week will have reminded the Labor leader that the hustings are no place for extemporising humans, and campaigns are no country for the messy ebbs and flows, concentration lapses or confidence dips that humans tend to exhibit.