I hope McConvill is a better lawyer than historian.

e.g. McConvill claims: "Gough Whitlam was voted out of office at the end of 1975."

Fact: Whitlam was sacked by the Governor-General who installed Malcolm Fraser as PM pending an election. The incumbent theory was distorted by the coup.

e.g. McConvill claims: "The 1993 election was unwinnable for the then prime minister, Paul Keating. But Keating won. Why? Although unemployment was at record high levels, inflation had dropped significantly."

Plausible alternative explanations: The Australian electorate was opposed to John Hewson's proposed GST (which later John Howard said he would 'never, ever' introduce but did without a popular mandate). Moreover, Hewson was also a poor performer in public and lacked credibility with 'the battlers' (remember his confusion about the price of a cake?).

While economic matters and perceived self-interest heavily influence the way people vote, it is simplistic to ignore other influences such as media representations, cultural considerations (e.g. racism and loathing of 'the other'), personalities (compare and contrast Hawke and Keating; or Downer and Howard), security (fear of real or manufactured threats), concerns over the environment, and a sense of fair play for the underdog - to mention just a few.

I kinda wonder whether there's an element of fitting the facts to the thesis here. Voters understand interest rates but do they understand inflation? If they did wouldn't Hawke have gone sometime in the the 80s? There's also the question in 72 as to the disaster that was Labor up until then and the reform of Whitlam within the party. Those reforms gave it credibility.

But I'll take your thesis as correct. In that case Howard is at real risk from the drought (I'll continue with the idea that voters are so dumb as not to separate a drought from long-term economic manipulation). By mid next year we may see food prices 20+% higher (far more in some commodities) which will blow out inflation and hence interest rates unles the RBA adopts a 'this is just a blip' approach. If high prices and rates are the case, even with low oil prices (never a given these days), the incumbents may not be so secure as you are assuming. For the record I'm not a rusted on voter to either party.

A fundamental failure of most people who try to influence forums on this topic, is that they underestimate the intellect of the ordinary people of this country. They are not as brain dead as the perpetrators may think. The majority of the electorate are social reformists, not greed is good advocates, despite the in place agenda of the current government

James also neglects insecurity and uncertainty. People feeling nervous about interest rates and job security isn't too good for a government who, rightly or wrongly, are perceived to be responsible.

I think it will mainly come down who has to the support of the media, in conjunction with the degree of public opinion.

Murdoch helped Whitlam get elected but they later had a falling out when Gough refused his request to be appointed High Commissioner to London. The result was a strike by journalists who were having their stories editorially interfered with but the continuing blatant influence on public opinion made sure that Fraser won.

Hawke simply had vast personal popular support and Fraser was becoming too socially divisive. Remember the "national reconciliation" that Hawke promised?

Howard had both Packer and Murdoch personally and publically on-side when it counted.

I fear the media will sway it again but ultimately they will have to go with overwhelming popular opinion just to make money.

If it's reasonably close, the media tends to back the encumbent.

As much as I hate to admit it, McConville's right. Unless something unexpected and catastrophic happens, Howard is going to win.

Labor has failed to capitalise on every piece of good fortune thrown their way. In some cases it's ineptitude:

i.e. the whole 'lets screen tourists for values' comeback by Beazley (when he should have said all immigrants (not tourists) not just muslims should sign up to values, thus placating both the right and left by making a broad sweep)

Similarly, Beazley's policy on pulling out of Iraq now that we're there and not sustaining casualties is fairly divisive, whereas capitalising on the stupidity of the war in general isn't.

It isn't all labor ineptitude however - most of the time, Beazley and Rudd are doing a reasonable job screeching about the Liberals latest blunder. The problem is, their arguments don't find much traction, and it is assumed they're not properly capitalising on the situation.

And why don't their arguments find traction?
Low employment. Strong economy. Yeah, most of it's just riding the resources boom, but Howard's swinging his cap and riding his high horse, and until that horse has to be put down, he'll keep on riding it.