Nevertheless, Scott Morrison must be the focus of attention now because he is the new ingredient in the leadership contest. He alone is the key to unlocking Labor’s apparent hold on the next election. While he is the leader of a parliamentary team rather than a president his predecessor Turnbull had much the same team. That team, including Julie Bishop and Turnbull himself, was stronger. It is now up to Morrison to make the difference.

It is a big task. Can he be measured against a model of successful leaders? What is the record like for last-minute leaders who step in mid-term or just before an election?

There is no one model for successful leaders. The most successful Australian political leaders in the modern era, Sir Robert Menzies, John Howard and Bob Hawke were very different types of people. They came from different backgrounds and adhered to different social and religious values. Leaving aside the important questions of whether they suited their times and whether Australian society has changed so much that comparisons are of little use they offer different models of leadership.

Menzies was much more a patrician father figure than the other two men. Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, the great adversaries, were in the Menzies mould. They were not ‘average Australians’ in life-experience or personal demeanour by any means.

Hawke and Howard on the other hand were ‘men of the people’, but they reached out in different ways. Howard, the so-called ordinary suburban man, identified with popular sentiment, professed to be a great listener and sought to satisfy the immediate needs of the community. Hawke, the blokey, beer-drinking, hard-living larrikin cut through with the sports-loving crowd in bars and workplaces. He spoke their language.

Each of the three longest-term leaders emerged from internal party instability, but once in government they benefited from disunity among their opposition, enhancing their chances of staying in office. They had good ministerial teams around them to provide a sense of cohesion and the good fortune to be in office during largely favourable economic circumstances.

The record of last-minute leaders is mixed. Leadership challenges to Australian prime ministers mean there are quite a few examples to consider. Whether the newcomers have been successes or failures depends to some extent on how you measure success. Both Turnbull and Julia Gillard struggled back into office in 2016 and 2010 respectively having come to the job because their predecessors, Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd, looked as though they were heading for defeat. But even that diagnosis is contested by Abbott and Rudd. Just as Turnbull contests the notion that he was headed for inevitable defeat.

Rudd lost in 2013, after a very short second tenure, but his supporters claim he saved the furniture. Paul Keating won the unwinnable election in 1993 after replacing Hawke. Bill McMahon lost to Whitlam in 1972 after dislodging John Gorton. Replacement leaders have some success but not too much. There are also cautionary tales which suggest parties in trouble often continue to struggle under a new leader.

Where does Morrison fit in? The way to begin is to look for a parallel.

He is clearly no Turnbull in personal style or social attitudes but, given he was treasurer in the Turnbull government, probably similar in economic policy instincts. Compared to the three long-term leaders he is also clearly no Menzies. After half a century that comparison is probably meaningless anyway. Australia is now a very different place.

That leaves Hawke and Howard and there is a little bit of both men in Morrison’s persona. If he can present himself as just a little bit Hawkesque or Howardesque he will enhance his chances.

He has something of that amiable, bloke next door quality. As ‘ScoMo’ he is more ‘Hawkie’ than Howard. The Hawkie image fits with the Cronulla Sharks supporter who is relaxed, and moderately competent, running around with a football. He also has a self-deprecating side to his character which is socially appealing and makes him a good retail politician during campaigns.

Morrison shares many of Howard’s conservative values. But like Hawke, he also looks comfortable as one of the boys with a beer in his hand. But just one beer, not drinking a yard in a beer-drinking contest like Hawke.

However, Hawke was an agnostic and Howard was rarely demonstrably Christian. Morrison’s overt Pentecostal persona makes him different, more Ruddesque or Abbottesque in that regard. His religious persona contributes to his strengths, including his ever-optimistic, sunny personality. And even in an era of Christian decline it connects him not just to conservative Christians but potentially to other communities which value a faith-filled life.

But his religious persona also leads him into potentially dangerous territory. While he seems aware of the danger of coming across as a culture warrior like Abbott, prosecuting a religious freedom agenda moves him inevitably in that direction. He needs to keep Hawke not Abbott as his model if he is to be successful. But is a conservative Pentecostal Hawke-like figure possible?

John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University