How did the Coalition enter this campaign so poorly prepared? The second-most remarkable thing about this election is how far in advance we all knew what Labor had planned. We knew the timing – give or take a month – because Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he wanted to serve a full term. We knew Labor’s slogan because it was revealed last year. Labor telegraphed that its major announcements would be completed well before the campaign – and, except for some small tax cuts, they were.

Most importantly, Labor’s argument for itself has barely shifted in three years. We had a pretty good sense even from Albanese’s time as opposition leader, when he declared voters had “conflict fatigue”. Albanese set the tone in his first year: deliberate and unostentatious, avoiding fights, arguably unambitious. Workmanlike.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton at their final debate.Credit: AAP

The single most remarkable thing about this election, then, is how little the Coalition’s campaign seems to have been framed against a Labor campaign we knew was coming. Successful campaigns are built around contrasts. The best possible campaign will contrast your most obvious strengths with your opponent’s most obvious weaknesses. John Howard’s accusation that Kim Beazley lacked “ticker” – to contrast with his own stubborn courage – was perfect.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s campaign has been the opposite of this. Instead of highlighting Labor’s flaws, it feels as though the Coalition has done all it can to underline Albanese’s modest strengths.

Think of it this way. Imagine your opponent has a slow, steady, gradualist approach, one that........

© WA Today