Eventually, before too long, one must be called if only because further delay will ensure loss of face for the government. It has allowed the impression that an election is imminent to build up to breaking point.

There is no lull. The storm is brewing. The government and the ruling coalition parties are each gaining thinking time for the refining of strategy and tactics. The question is whether they are putting it to good use and whether the time taken is advantaging them.

The recent Ipsos poll of voting intentions and popular reactions to the Budget suggests that they have a great deal of work to do and ground to make up. The government remains well behind and the Budget is not in itself going to save it.

What then could save the government? In addition to its own positive and negative efforts the government must rely on self-inflicted wounds by the opposition. That happened in the recent New South Wales state elections with the Labor Opposition Leader Michael Daley.

Yet Bill Shorten, after nearly six years as Opposition Leader, does not appear to be anything like as vulnerable as Daley. Short of claiming that he is the agent of a hostile foreign power it seems like nothing worse can be said about Shorten than is already in the public arena.

He has been so long in the public eye and so often subject to forensic analysis by his enemies and independent observers that it would appear nothing more can be said.

However, that experienced political campaigner, Peter Phelps, from the NSW Liberals' dirt unit is now on record in The Saturday Paper that there is more mud available to be thrown at Shorten, but even he apparently doubts that any of it will alter the likely election result.

Before we become immersed in detailed partisan debates and electorate trench-warfare here are some general propositions.

This election campaign will give both the government and the opposition a relatively even chance to present their credentials.

While the government always enjoys the advantage of incumbency, which means inside knowledge, government advertising and bureaucratic support, on occasions when the budget speech is so close to the election date the playing field is reasonably even.

The opposition and government start from essentially the same budget position and opposition promises can be made knowing that voters realise that swift implementation is within their reach. Initiatives from each side can be easily countered.

There are at least four big dangers in any election campaign: bad policies, extravagant promises, personal attacks and fear-mongering.

There is much that is subjective when evaluating policies but those policies that are offered in the last-minute rush before an election always run the risk of poor construction and short-term electoral goals rather than longer-term benefits.

The short parliamentary session following the Budget restricts the chance of detailed examination by the Senate and an opposition keen to take the reins of government may be inclined to wave flawed policies through rather than be seen to be picking a needless fight. That doesn't bode well.

Campaign policies are targeted inordinately at swinging voters. This means that the most vulnerable and the common good of the community are easily overlooked.

The disappointed reaction by representatives from the social services sector to the Budget speech shows already that the most disadvantaged, here and overseas, continue to suffer from inadequate government support despite our country's privileged position.

There is a widespread school of thought that votes can be bought by extravagant promises. Election campaigns are the best time for pork-barrelling.

The next month will be full of sugar-hits and so-called sweeteners on both sides, whether they be personal tax cuts, promises of government grants or special deals for organised interests.

Every candidate and party is guilty of this in their desire to win. Citizens are complicit in this too if their main concern is what's in it for me. Even those who speak on behalf of the disadvantaged can play the game as much as any pressure group by demanding excessively generous support for programs in education, health, aged care and so on.

We citizens should all make sure that in this campaign altruism is front and centre rather than a secondary consideration. We can do this by demanding that any group we are part of focuses on those in greatest need and steers clear of inordinate self-interest in making unrealistic demands of the government and the opposition.

Above all the good character of the campaign should be our great concern. There is always a place in campaigns for persuasion by both positive and negative means.

To be positive is to concentrate on presenting your own good qualities, while negative campaigning emphasises the weaknesses in the other side. That's reasonably acceptable but too often negativity can descend to personal denigration of your opponents' motivation and good will.

The Prime Minister sailed very close to the wind in explicitly claiming the opposition is lying. His claim that Labor's approach to the election was defined by "lies" goes beyond acceptable electioneering.

But it is the government's reaction to Labor's electric car policy targets that seems like exaggeration on steroids.

Given the history of Cold War politics and the damaging campaigning in post-World War II elections on issues of communist influence any campaigning now that smears opposition proposals as Soviet-era and having communist overtones is reprehensible and should be called out before it goes any further.

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