There were two secrets to John Howard's political success. One was that he had the ascendancy over Labor on the question of who would be the better economic manager. The other was that he defined politics in terms of culture, winning the votes of people in the outer metropolitan areas often against their class interest.

These are voters I call values voters because this is a term they frequently use when answering political questions. As often as not they are Christian (culturally if not practising) and in trades, sales and clerical occupations, often with close ancestral roots to the country. They are proudly Australian and believe in doing the right thing, even against their own perceived interest.

The last election was a change election. Howard had been in power for long enough that it was time for a change; and the issue of climate change demonstrated that he was a man of the past and not of the future.

But to be sure of a change Kevin Rudd needed to show Labor wasn't an economic risk, which he did by promising to copy Howard's economic policies.

He also had to win the trust of values voters, hence the constant references to his rural Christian upbringing. This was made easier for him because WorkChoices had made these voters distrust Howard.

With Malcolm Turnbull as leader the dynamic changed. The Liberals had economic cred, but zip cultural cred. Turnbull started with promising approval figures but these soon collapsed. On the right, out where values are important, he was viewed with suspicion.

In the centre, where he belonged, voters liked him; they just liked Rudd even more and as soon as Turnbull attacked Rudd his approval there started to drop.

Turnbull's conditional support of Rudd's emissions trading scheme, which as a tax threatening ways of life, challenged both economics and culture, didn't appeal to values voters or to the Liberals' branch membership.

Rudd was heading towards a comprehensive election win over a demoralised splintering opposition. That might still be the case, but first the government needs to work out how to enter the new conversation Abbott has started.

When we asked respondents who they preferred as prime minister the map is radically redrawn from two months ago.

In October, when Turnbull was Liberal leader, Rudd was seen as having a better team and being more concerned with people.

This was contrasted with the Liberals who were disunited and an extension of business, although business was also a plus for the Liberals as it underscored their economic credentials.

There was also an issue of honesty with neither having the advantage. Rudd has problems with spin and substance, while Turnbull was viewed as being too business oriented.

With Abbott economics and business have almost disappeared from responses for who is preferred PM. Climate change is at the centre of debate, and for the first time in my lifetime religion has become an issue.

In Rudd and Abbott we have the two most overtly religious party leaders Australia has seen, but it colours public perceptions of them in different ways.

While only one-third of respondents are uncomfortable with Rudd holding religious views, almost half are uncomfortable with Abbott holding them.

Why the difference? One clue is given by the fact that honesty was an issue between Turnbull and Rudd, but the honours were finely balanced.

In this new contest honesty is very strongly associated with Abbott. Rudd seems more the populist and Abbott seems authentic. So it appears that voters see Rudd as formally, but not fundamentally, committed to religion, and essentially a secularist. But they think Abbott is a man of religious conviction who will act on his beliefs.

They are also making a judgment on what beliefs both men hold. "Extreme" is a word that is applied to Abbott's Catholicism, which is associated with "abortion" and "stem cell".

So it is also partly a women's rights agenda, and when one looks at Abbott's approval from women one finds that it is much worse than his approval from men, particularly with women under 45.

Two other concepts define Abbott. One is "country", which gathers together all the threads of nationalism. Some of his critics even label Abbott a Hansonite. That label won't trouble the values voters who are likely to find the volunteer lifeguard and firefighter an icon of Aussie virtues.

The other concept is "people", which references concern for others. Normally it is associated with the ALP, which is seen as the party of empathy, but it seems Abbott is seen as more caring than Rudd.

So Abbott potentially regains the Liberals' cultural ascendancy with the Howard battlers, but doesn't rate as an economic manager. He loses young female voters, and replays the Liberal theme of actions v words, but in a way that some voters find threatening. How will this run in the next election?

If Abbott runs a head-to-head personality battle with Rudd of conviction politician v populist, real man v metro man, old Australia v new Australia, doer v talker, then risk is on the Liberal side and they probably lose badly. If the next election is about climate change or the economy, then I think Rudd wins well.

But if it is about whether Rudd is living up to expectations, or has got a bit too pompous, narcissistic and self-satisfied, then the straight-shooting gadfly may do surprisingly well. Particularly if voters don't think he will win.

First published in The Australian January 2, 2010.

Share this article on your favourite social bookmarking sites: