Something there went very wrong. Blunders allowing the virus to escape into the community slipped through the very structures designed to protect us. It was a design failure. Blaming lax security guards or, more sensationally, the myth of horny, locked-up detainees, isn't an answer.

Stopping COVID-19 has always depended on strategies chosen and implemented by politicians. If these failed, it's up to the politicians to explain why and how.

Premier Dan Andrews looks calm and confident before the microphone, but outside the carefully arranged backdrop of the briefing room where he's in control, things are falling apart.

Scott Morrison, by contrast, looks better and better. Yes, economic relief is disjointed and inadequate and yes, the terrible rate of deaths in aged care homes suggests massive and deep structural problems. Nevertheless, such concerns fade into the background when there is such a simple score available for measuring success. Feds 1; Vic 0.

People generally ignore politics except if it directly affects them. They haven't forgotten about voting - it's just they don't need to focus on it until an election draws near. At that time they'll switch on and make a judgment on all that noise they've been listening to in the background over the past three years, think about the leaders, decide (yeah, nah) and choose who (if anyone) to vote for.

This is a (very) long way around getting to the problem that's facing federal Labor at the moment. It's also the context in which to interpret the straitjacket constricting the party. Push too hard, and it will be marked down for not getting with the program. Say too little, and it risks allowing the government to float to the election; the result a foregone conclusion.

READ MORE:

Which brings us to Richard Marles' speech last week at the National Press Club.

In a tight, focused, and detailed speech, the opposition's defence spokesman castigated the government's handling of the $90 billion project to build submarines as the cornerstone of defence into the 2050s (and beyond). His case was faultless; his advocacy flawless; his passion fierce and fiery. So why, at the end, did I come away wondering "what was that about?"

Marles' problem was that despite (a) proving, conclusively, that the project was financially out of control, and (b) that it was unlikely to ever provide the strategic answer we'd hoped it would, he left his final summation drifting in the wind. At first I thought this was a blunder; now I realise it was a feature.

To the ordinarily attentive listener, his conclusion appeared preordained: there is no point whatsoever in proceeding with the submarines, but that's not what he said.

Unless the submarine is fitted with land-attack missiles, its key (and only) real ability will be its effectiveness at sinking enemy ships. While this is highly useful for a balanced force, it's a luxury for one on our budget. Simply maintaining forces and capability in each domain (air, land, sea, undersea, cyber and space), while retaining a submarine fleet of 12 boats - twice the current number - will completely unbalance our forces, swallowing an enormous percentage of the defence budget at extreme risk. The subs are vulnerable to one simple technological advance. They won't be able to dive deep enough to escape new, self-guided torpedoes, which will search out and destroy them.

So if the conclusion to abandon the sub is so straightforward, why didn't Marles just go ahead and draw it?

The answer is this is all just part of a phoney war to stay relevant. It's not that Marles doesn't have ideas, but that he doesn't want to get pushed into outlining policy before he can capitalise on ripping strips off the government. That's something he can't do at the moment, because nobody's listening. That's why the opposition is stoking the political fire, making sure there's enough wood to keep it burning, but not allowing it to flare up before the election. Denied the opportunity to press the government about defence more closely in Parliament, Marles is simply talking up this most egregious example of mismanagement so he can push it in the public arena. It's an ersatz issue; what you talk about when there's nothing to say.

This is why he didn't push alternatives or, more radically, advocate dropping the project. That's not what he's about. Marles wants to keep the issue bubbling along under the surface (so to speak), ready to raise closer to the election.

Albanese was also present at Marles' speech. He knows this election represents his first, last, and only chance of becoming PM. He won't let it slip by. He's buoyed up by the party's recent, hard-fought victory in Eden-Monaro.

The truth is, of course, that this is a poll that Labor should always have expected to win. The electorate was badly devastated by the bushfires. Nevertheless, sitting member Mike Kelly had resigned, and Morrison was throwing everything he could at the seat, attempting to capitalise on his personal popularity. He failed.

The government's still wildly ahead nationally, however, 52 to 48 in the latest poll. That's landslide victory territory, which is why Labor's task is so fraught.

Marles' speech suggests Labor's not attempting to convert voters yet. It can afford to play the long game. The election's still at least a year off and there's no point in engaging. Running deep and silent is a far better strategy for now.