And things got worse. In March, The Australian's Paul Kelly wrote that ''within five short years'' of Howard's 1996 landslide, Labor could win a comfortable majority, supported by six state Labor governments. (Four state Coalition governments had fallen since 1998, with only South Australia to go. Sound familiar?) If the blue-ribbon seat of Ryan fell in a byelection, it would be ''proof that the malaise has corroded the foundations of the Liberal Party''. Ryan fell in a swing that commentators calculated would lose the government 56 of its 80 seats. This was always improbable. The margin in 12 federal elections since 1980 has never been more than seven points - a two-party vote of 53.5-46.5 - and averages three points.

The byelection loss led to ''feverish leadership speculation, internal suspicion and instability'', as The Age's Michael Gordon predicted. Voters, it was widely observed, had ''stopped listening'' to Howard. By April, an Age poll put the Coalition 20 points behind. By May, Bolt declared Howard ''God's gift to his foes'', devoid of vision, inspiration and understanding. ''Those who hoped John Howard might do it now know he's a one-trick pony.'' Come July and a knife-edge Aston byelection, and Bolt, not yet a diehard Howard loyalist, lamented the failure to ditch a leader who was ''gone, gone, gone''. ''If Aston proved anything, it is that Howard is following history's script and heading to an awful defeat.'' Within four months, Howard led the Coalition to a resounding victory, his third.

Some argue that the Tampa affair and September 11 terrorism produced the political miracle that changed the script. Yet Howard was a three-trick pony. In 1998, the Coalition had trailed all year - by 44-56 in this newspaper's poll 11 weeks before the election - and won 51-49 in October. The Howard government began 2004 again ''facing a landslide defeat'' (The Australian's George Megalogenis) and trailed 56-44 within five months of election day. Deemed to have suffered a fatal loss of credibility, the government tried to make Mark Latham the issue, but made no gains. Howard was seen to be losing badly. Come October, he won again, by a 53-47 margin, as voters apparently decided Mark Latham was borderline bonkers.

Today, the polls are grim for the government and commentary reflects this: as with Howard, the problem, surely, is Gillard herself. She is a ''goner''. Yes, Labor's 26.85 per cent primary vote in Queensland was disastrous, and last year's 24.03 per cent in New South Wales was worse. Gillard certainly does not inspire confidence in her ability to turn things around, but neither did Howard 11 years ago. His government repeatedly showed the truth of the adage that only one poll counts.

Federal Labor has been burdened by ALP governments ageing disgracefully as they clung to power in NSW and Queensland. As with wall-to-wall state Labor governments in the Howard era, the Gillard government might benefit as state coalitions lump the baggage of government. Most governments suffer mid-term slumps, a timeframe that applies to the Queensland, NSW and Victorian governments when the federal election is due. No amount of certainty and seeming authority can alter the essential idiocy of announcing voters' verdict a year and a half in advance.