The brain can idle in neutral as we watch the cage fight between two barefoot gladiators, or two roosters for all we care.

If you like, a slightly less sophisticated version of The Hunger Games, where in political terms this very personal battle turns deadly.

You may have noticed Labor turning the French president's accusation of Scott Morrison, as the liar from the shire, into a campaign theme.

In return the Libs have started branding Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese as weak on just about everything he does.

The terminology will feature heavily between now and next May's likely election.

Albanese will be weak on the virus, relations with China, a Federal ICAC, taxes, religious discrimination laws, health funding, etc etc.

According to Labor's campaign manifesto, Morrison will be dishonest on the virus, relations with China, a federal ICAC, taxes, religious discrimination laws, health funding, etc, etc.

It's an easier marketing campaign because we don't have to grasp or evaluate every election promise.

It boils down to the appeal of two personalities.

It will suit both sides.

A presidential campaign is a lot less messy than say, Bill Shorten's grab-bag of controversial policies in 2019, which portrayed Labor as far more policy-frantic than the Whitlam Government in 1973, when it tried to jam three years of policies and promises into an overnight suitcase.

US elections have spawned the dominance of the presidential campaign, and in Australia this has embodied change-of-government elections with: Billy McMahon and Gough Whitlam in 1972; Malcolm Fraser and Bob Hawke 1983; Paul Keating and John Howard 1996; Kevin Rudd and John Howard 2007 and Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, 2013.

The simple themes of a US presidential campaign easily translate into an Australian version of a cock fight.

Policies and promises feature only to the extent of derogatory references and abuse between the protagonists. Policies are cloaked in slogans so as not to overly require our concentration, nor distract us from the blood and gore of the cage fight.

The more details to emerge of Scott Morrison and his deputy Josh Frydenberg bullying Bridget Archer to tears in the PM's suite last week, the more she is likely to hold Bass.

She stepped out of the Coalition comfort zone and made a stand when crossing the floor to vote against her party on ICAC legislation, and it will land her in more trouble back home with the Liberal hierarchy in Bass and statewide.

What impressed me about her descent into a world of trouble is that she was dealing with policy.

This wasn't some social conscious vote on a familiar issue like abortion or gay marriage.

It was about establishing an investigative body to guard against corruption in the federal sphere, and what the Morrison government should have done and dusted months, if not years, ago.

In the foreseeable future you won't see any of this policy adventurism.

You'll see the liar from the shire versus Labor's weak link, with simple themes like trust, dishonesty, courage, stature, patience, aggression, cunning, charades and mirages.

For primarily self preservation reasons, both sides have made it harder to stage a leadership coup without waking up the neighbourhood, but nothing will dim the lights of centre stage when the bell is rung and the protagonists lock horns in combat.

In the proper election campaign most of the ministry and shadow ministry are in the wings and veiled in a misty grey so as not to eclipse the lime light from their leader.

Name me a dozen politicians in Canberra, whether backbenchers or front benchers.

Some of you might be able to, but I reckon most would be stuck.

This is exactly how the party machines like it.

In the federal campaign of 1980 Labor sought to overcome the timid traits of Labor leader Bill Hayden by positioning Bob Hawke and NSW Premier Neville Wran either side of him at press conferences.

Labor almost won that election but I reckon it lost because of the unfortunate characterisation of Hayden as weak and needing moral support.

Sadly in politics, being conciliatory or reasonable will always be misconstrued, or misrepresented, as weakness.

It taught me the rationale of the presidential campaign.

Out front there will always have to be a superman or a wonder woman. People love heroes. They love the focus on simple images and larger than life characters.

They want a leader with the wit of Whitlam, the height and strength of Fraser, the charm of Berejiklian, the charisma of JFK, the raconteur intellect of Hawke and the belligerence of our own Eric Reece.

All they want is a championship blood sport between two giant monoliths.

The policies and ideas can be left to fill in the gap between elections.